Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

James Bond

Regulars
  • Posts

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by James Bond

  1. Me? Twice. I only read it for the first time 3 years ago, but I found had retained a lot of it when I re-read it this summer. What about you?
  2. true, a good state would be good. I'm saying the conditions that necessitate a state are evil (criminals, fraud, etc.)
  3. My thinking has orbited more back towards hard line objectivism. As I see it, objectivism is opposed to anarchy on practical grounds, not moral. While it would be nice to live in a society that didn't require any government, that wouldn't or won't happen on a global scale any time soon. The state is a necessary evil. There is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical...I would still support anarchic causes (see: seasteading, esp. for scientific projects)
  4. I agree that Rand's ethics are unique and rare, but I have to disagree that you can't find authentic egoism anywhere else. This begs the question though..why does a person's centralized philosophy have come from centralization? I agree that a person needs philosophy to survive in the same way that a person needs water, and that that the philosophy needs to be integrated. My fear is that in labeling oneself an objectivist, one might also be be accepting a package deal. Looking back, I believed in all of the tenets of objectivism before I started calling myself an objectivist..and now I wonder why I ever started calling myself an objectivist. I think it might have been because of the sense of community that it brings, and the romantic portrait that is painted by Rand's fiction. Take a gun enthusiast..he doesn't need to be an NRA member in order to enjoy gun culture, but it's fun/useful/more to be a NRA member.
  5. I've read PWNI, and I appreciate it. But here's the thing. One can find all of the same tenets of objectivism throughout the history of philosophy, so why associate yourself with a philosophy that has a lot of negative externalities? Why not say I'm a transhumanist/atheist/capitalist/virtue theoriest/sense-datam critical realist/romantic realist? Why is that less useful than simply saying I'm an objectivist, and consequently attaching myself to a system that, like so many other associations, comes with imperfections. That's why I asked in the original post what the benefits of are of advocating a system, rather than advocating tenets.
  6. I'm a fan of Roderick Long, and I think my view might be similar to his. Which is to say, perhaps I'm heavily influenced by objectivism, but outside Rand's closed system and more squarely positioned in general classical liberalism, peripateticism, and transhumanism. You might argue I've never been an objectivist at all, because from the start I've agreed with David Kelley that objectivism, as a philosophy of reason, has precedence over Ayn Rand. You might be right. In that case, if you are right in your position, than so am I.
  7. You raise an interesting point. Is it possible to leave Objectivism and still be rational? In order to do that, my personal philosophy would have to be more fully rational than Ayn Rand's. I think it may be.
  8. I'm starting to be persuaded by the arguments for anarcho-capitalism. If I do end up being completely persuaded, I would no longer be able to call myself an objectivist. Beyond that, I'm also starting to question the value of being associated with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. While agree with the tenets of Oism, I'm starting to wonder why I should specifically stick with the system of Oism rather than a more enumerative/academic approach to those same tenets. If you have any thoughts on why one should stick with a collected system rather than the alternative, I'd love to hear them.
  9. http://heroesofcapitalism.blogspot.com/2009/01/mark-cuban.html There's a whole archive down near the bottom. I think it's run by objectivists, it says it was inspired by Andrew Bernstien. Sorry if it has already been posted. Enjoy.
  10. Roderick Long is an objectivist turned libertarian. He says he's still a Aristotelian/Wittgenstienian, and still has many agreements with Rand.
  11. If Peikoff suddenly agreed that Oism is an open system, it wouldn't discredit OPAR. If Kelley shifted to thinking that Oism is a closed system, it wouldn't invalidate TLSO. I know you might say that TLSO differs from Oism, but have you actually read it? I don't say that to be insulting, but to raise the point that it's sad to see objectivists ignore a lots of good work just because Peikoff says it's a no-go.
  12. True, but Ayn Rand herself said "I'm glad you are not that acquainted with my philosophy, because if you were, you'd know I haven't nearly said everything yet. I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done. So objectivism, while a complete system, still needs elaboration. That elaboration is done by philosophers. You have to admit then there there are more objectivist philosophers than just Ayn Rand. Peikoff and Kelley are both objectivists, whether or not one thinks the system is closed. Despite being a fact, that tenet is a not an essential of objectivism.
  13. Who, Kelley? I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. One point I'd like to make is that the idea that objectivism is an open or closed system is a not a primary tenet of objectivism. Kelley is a objectivist philosopher, because he rationally agrees with all of the tenets of objectivism. Peikoff is also, even though he thinks the system is closed.
  14. So the main question is who can we call an objectivist philosopher? Why should that title only be given to those who claim that objectivism is a closed system? Why does someone need to cowtow to a peripheral tenet in order to be an objectivist? I think a strong case could be made that people who think objectivism is closed are actually less objectivist than those who think it is open.
  15. so why then do you think Kelley is wrong on many points? If his work is as consistent with objectivism (which it is) as Peikoff, but he think's it is an open system, why condemn him and subsequentially deprive yourself from all the benefits of his work?
  16. So here's a question for the closed-system advocate: What if Peikoff changed his mind, now, and agreed that objectivism is an open system. Would you then have to say that his work isn't objectivist? I think the nature of objectivism by definition is anti-polycentric.
  17. I didn't say it was relevant, it was in reply to your question.
  18. Easily. Anyone who supports fringe ideas that Rand held that now in 2010 have become uninformed. Examples: Homosexuality, her Nietzchean background, hyper-judgement, or even smoking. There are people, and you might be one of them, who deeply unable to say that Ayn Rand was occasionally wrong..and that's a problem. To me, that appears to be intrinsicist.
  19. I used the phrase "seems to be" to be polite. I don't think there's any latent evasion, although there might be some..if so I'll work on it. Maybe I'm missing something but it isn't clear to me. I think it is possible for a system to be open and still be called a system. Here's an example of an area in objectivism that still needs work. Free will. I'm not satisfied with Peikoff's enumeration on it, let alone Rand's. In this case, as in other's, Ayn Rand's grounding principles are more like a foundation, and the above ground structure still needs to be made on the prepared base. Again, to say that all of the objectivist philosophical work was finished in 1982 would be absurd, something that Rand agreed with as evidenced by my earlier quote. She would probably condemn the idea of a open system, but even if she would, it doesn't matter. She was wrong. Reality is the final judge. Reason is the final tool, and I hold my mind above Ayn Rand's or anyone else's. It seems intrinsic to me to say that everything Rand said was right just because it was Rand. That's not denigrating Ayn Rand at all, but it is denigrating people who reify her. If anything that is a tribute to Rand, because of the way she herself exalted the individual mind.
  20. I checked my CP but I couldn't find how to delete my account. Any help would be appreciated.
  21. I'm starting to think that maybe this isn't the best forum for me..but thank you all for the discussion.
  22. some of his philosophical essays in the 60's I think can be..such as the ones included in VOS and CUI. I think Kelley is right that objectivism is an open system. Peikoff's intentions seem to be innocent, but I think Kelley was right when he said that there seems to be a bit of reification. It doesn't bother me what other people think. I'm not intimidated.
  23. We use the term "calculus" to refer to a general body of work. There are taxonomies of Newtonian/Leibnizian calculus, but it is proper to call both calculus. Objectivism holds that truths are discovered, the same way systems like calculus are discovered. If calculus, or a philosophy, has room for addition, it would inimical to say we shouldn't add to either, or that we should start giving separate names to the same concept. To say that that all of the philosophy that we call objectivist was finished back in 1982 would be an odd thing to do. If we are going to do that, we also have to start calling work Peikoffism, Smithism, Binswangerism, you get the idea.
  24. Not at all. The issue is whether we can call additions or revisions of the philosophy objectivist. I think we can, assuming they are rational. Accordingly, David Kelley's work should be considered objectivist, and so should Peikoff's. I think it can get dangerous to hold someone up above any scrutiny. That would never happen. Contradictions don't exist. Either one side is right, or one is wrong. It is a philosophical issue. AR calls homosexuality morally evil, which pertains to ethics, and to the philosophy of gender. I agree, mostly. Objectivism is the truth. I'd be surprised if Rand would strongly disagree with future objectivist thought. She'd probably be impressed. What better way to pay homage to someone than to contribute to their fundamental work? To say that that all of the philosophy that we call objectivist was finished back in 1982 would be an odd thing to do. If we are going to do that, we also have to start calling work Peikoffism, Smithism, Binswangerism, you get the idea.
×
×
  • Create New...