Objectivism: The Final Philosphy?

[Space Patroller]

There is no guarantee of a particular future, only a guarantee of some future. I would like to posit the hypothesis that Philosophy and the content of Objectivism will be one and the same if we continue to remain civilized and advance as a civilized species.

First it is comprehnsive and does all that a philosphy should. It "touches them all". It does not need to be "validated' by elements of other philsophis such as Taoism (which is its opposite, having "Quietism" or the acceptance of fate as one of its doctrines). Buddhism orP Platonism. It validates by using valdi reasoning and is true by applying that reasoning to factual premises

http://dancona.spacepatrol.us/afternoon.html

Second it is a complete work. No more can be added to it that changes anything

http://dancona.spacepatrol.us/thatsall.html

If, as Miss Rand said "There are only two ways men have by which to deal with eachother: Logic or a gun, that is reason or force". and if reason is superior to force, please note that the Left is still trying to cling to its tattered mantle of being the advocates of reason when thechips are down and they must present a public face. If you doubt the truth of this claim, If you came down with lymphoma, would you rather deal with it through medicine or a pistol? Also, you need to apply reason to control the force that you must use (defensive and retaliatory). So reason must be on a higher level; that which Aristotle called the "human" level.

As the deficiencies of statism and its foundation. brute force applied to politics, become more and more clear in contrast to the benefits of reason (If I have to list them then where have you been?), it seems safe to say that humanity will gravitate to that which does the real work: Reason, if it is to survive.

Well, what philosphy is reason incarnate? What is the final development of objectism as a philsophical doctrine, completing the work started by Aristotle, continued by Aquinas and functioning as the unstated foundations of science? Who was it that said "When an animal is attacked from byond it's range of awareness, it dies" and what has expanded our range of awarness more than science?

The only charges I've heard that have any weight is that Rand's philosophy lacks "rigor" and it even gets a pass on that count from the better philsopheres since it does accomplish its mission of being a philosophy fro daily living

http://dancona.spacepatrol.us/psystem.html

Well, what do you think; do we have the bestest ever or what?

[A is A]

------------

http://dancona.spacepatrol.us/psystem.html

Well, what do you think; do we have the bestest ever or what?

Yes.

But your first mistake is a standard one that many make:

Those who inherited the reins of the philosophy from her uses as the definition: "OBJECTIVISM: the philosophy of Ayn Rand". This definition, while a true statement. totally missies the mark and is in danger of leading to a cult of personality.

"Objectivism" is not a concept that requires a definition. It is a proper noun. "The philosophy of Ayn Rand" is a description of the noun, just as "Manhattan is an island in New York City" is a description of Manhattan, not a definition. If you have a problem grasping this, then remember how concepts are formed (see ITOE) and explain to me how the 'concept' Objectivism was formed in accordance with those rules.

PS. Please use a spell checker.

[Jill]

Why would philosophy stop evolving?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I don't think it would.

As Objectivism becomes more and more accepted there will be efforts to modify what is already there (the result not being Objectivism--hopefully they won't attempt to label it as such) or to expand on it, covering new issues (the result also not, strictly speaking, being Objectivism). Even if such an expansion is purely consistent with what is already there, it's not Objectivism. Both are avenues for the possible development of a (dare I say it) post-Objectivist philosophy, though I would tend to much prefer the latter category since Objectivism-with-extensions would mean people accept Objectivism in toto, just not that it is the whole of what they accept.

I don't think professional philosophers will ever stop studying other philosophies however, so they will remain part of the subject matter. Philosophy tends to get studied in a historical manner. "Plato said blah, blah, blah, while Aristotle said yakkety yakkety yak, but Schopenhauer exploited Aristotle's false premise and came back with natter, natter, natter, which almost doomed Western Civilization, but Rand resolved the whole mess very simply by..."

[Space Patroller]

Why would philosophy stop evolving?

Into what?

Either the world exists apart from and prior to what we think or it does not.

Either reason is the only proper tool of knowledge or it is not.

Either egoism is the proper ethics or it is not.

Either individual rights (taken as a unit) is the proper politics or it is not.

Either Romantic Realism is the proper aesthetics or it is not.

These two positions are exhaustive of the choices (anything else is an unstable and unsatisfactory attempt to mix the two) and the categories are exhaustive of the purview of philosophy. There's nowhere else to go. So how could it evolve if there is no place to evolve to? Is 1+1=2 still evolving to say 1+1=3 or 1+1=1.4>2>2.9? Some things do reach a final form. Some life forms have been as they are for 100,000,000 years with only non-supstantive changes. There may come some hew validations of things but they will not change anything major or definitive of the philosophical system that is OPAR. In fact they will use them.

Also it's a closed system, sufficient as a philosophical system unto itself

The fact is that it marks the last stage of evolution of reality-based philosphy, which start is associated with Aristotle so it's been in the making for 2300 years.

[prosperity]

Into what?

Either the world exists apart from and prior to what we think or it does not.

Either reason is the only proper tool of knowledge or it is not.

Either egoism is the proper ethics or it is not.

Either individual rights (taken as a unit) is the proper politics or it is not.

Either Romantic Realism is the proper aesthetics or it is not.

These two positions are exhaustive of the choices (anything else is an unstable and unsatisfactory attempt to mix the two) and the categories are exhaustive of the purview of philosophy. There's nowhere else to go. So how could it evolve if there is no place to evolve to? Is 1+1=2 still evolving to say 1+1=3 or 1+1=1.4>2>2.9? Some things do reach a final form. Some life forms have been as they are for 100,000,000 years with only non-supstantive changes. There may come some hew validations of things but they will not change anything major or definitive of the philosophical system that is OPAR. In fact they will use them.

Also it's a closed system, sufficient as a philosophical system unto itself

The fact is that it marks the last stage of evolution of reality-based philosphy, which start is associated with Aristotle so it's been in the making for 2300 years.

I think you may see individuals attempting to expand on issues that Rand did not have time to do, or did not do for other reasons. Like her epistemology, for example. She only got as far as "an introduction".

[wilicyote]

I do not think that things will ever be settled. Each time that science finds some new knowledge that appears to deconstruct all we have known so far, reality will fall under attack. This has happened several times since Aristotle. It will not stop. Presently we are suffering just such a crisis in physics what with uncertainty and all that it has led to. I have full confidence that in time we will learn enough to integrate some (or even all) of the most confusing aspects of Quantum theory with reality and then look back and laugh. But right now things are ... well... foggy. Into this fog has lept a whole host of mysticists. As the details of this level of reality are nailed down we will have to beat these mystics back. But the struggle will go on forever, or at least until we know it all.

Edited March 2, 2009 by wilicyote

[John McVey]

Into what?

More detail, for one!

Miss Rand never said that what she wrote was the last word. Further, Dr Peikoff (who can speak on her behalf) has explicitly said there's likely much more to come, and that who knows who might do work that surpasses Objectivism?

Also it's a closed system, sufficient as a philosophical system unto itself

Hold yer horses there, son! Being a closed system just means nobody can add stuff to it and have what they've formulated called "Objectivism." It does not mean that Miss Rand figured out all we ever need to know about philosophical matters. She even said so explicitly - in aesthetics, for instance, she said outright that there is a definite need for someone to figure out the vocabulary of music and integrate it with general aesthetic principles.

Yes, Objectivist philosophy is marvellous and can take one anywhere, but that's not the end of the matter even in philosophy. There's a saying in karate - you don't actually begin learning karate until after you've gotten a black-belt. So, perhaps you've earned a black-belt in philosophy by integrating Objectivism into your life; now you can go on and really learn more and add to philosophy and/or whatever other field you choose.

JJM

[Greebo]

One does not learn Integral Calculus before one learns addition. Philosophy, like other areas of knowledge, builds from basic, fundamental building blocks to advanced topics.

Ayn Rand's philosophy serves to give us the fundamental building blocks.

[AllMenAreIslands]

I think the next step is the philosophy of Individualism, which is the one that will pick up where Objectivism left off, and as well enable mankind to finally establish the first true civilization (one that does not permit the government to initiate the use of force in any way, and properly limits government's actions.)

[DavidOdden]

I think the next step is the philosophy of Individualism, which is the one that will pick up where Objectivism left off, and as well enable mankind to finally establish the first true civilization (one that does not permit the government to initiate the use of force in any way, and properly limits government's actions.)

What is "Individualism" that makes it different from Objectivism? Objectivism is an integrated philosophy which includes epistemology, ethics, metaphysics and aesthetics. Assuming there is no such thing as Individualist epistemology or metaphysics, then Individualism would be a subset of Objectivism. How is it different from Objectivism in those areas?

[Eklund]

I thought Integral Calculus was pretty difficult.

[AllMenAreIslands]

What is "Individualism" that makes it different from Objectivism? Objectivism is an integrated philosophy which includes epistemology, ethics, metaphysics and aesthetics. Assuming there is no such thing as Individualist epistemology or metaphysics, then Individualism would be a subset of Objectivism. How is it different from Objectivism in those areas?

At this point it's just a great name. It's one direction in which philosophy could travel and perhaps ought to travel, continuing from where Ayn Rand left off. Does it have to reject what Objectivism says in order to be the next step? It might just be a great name for a political party or movement. It might turn out to be a subset. Or it might become a whole proper philosophy.

For example, is "selfish"really the best word to denote "one's best interests"? The suffix "ish" often implies an approximation as in the term "I'll see you at nine-ish." That means "somewhere around 9," not "9 on the dot." So there is room to improve on the concepts concerning self-interest, as well as the methodology for determining what is in one's best interests taking into account all that one knows and cares about. Perhaps a word like "self-hood" would be better, given as well the incredible amount of bad press "selfish" has gotten. We aren't going to change people's minds about the meaning of "selfish" - may as well accept it. My question is, should we keep trying, or should we instead find a more precise term?

There's the whole area of developing hierarchies of value. At present it seems things are much more bad vs good, but what happens when people have more money and more decisions to make. Let's say the idea of limited government is finally accepted, and people are to be responsible for the decisions currently being made on their behalf by government authorities. Guidance in how to make those decisions - how to weigh up and choose among many good uses of one's time & resources.

Being objective is just the start - one has to integrate subjectivity into the mix as well in order to make those kinds of decisions. That is something I think a philosophy of Individualism ought to address.

And the idea that a single political party should be elected, which party proceeds to ram its views down everyone's throats - that would disappear but people need guidance on how to manage with a new system where nobody's views are rammed down anyone's throat. Developing the intellectual infrastructure of a free society is something else Individualism could do.

There's no end to the evolution of philosophy.

[brian0918]

Your argument about "selfish" regards linguistics, not philosophy. The underlying concept is the same regardless of what word you use to reference it.

As for the word specifically, other words that were used in the past in place of "selfish" are self-ended and self-ful.

At present it seems things are much more bad vs good, but what happens when people have more money and more decisions to make. Let's say the idea of limited government is finally accepted, and people are to be responsible for the decisions currently being made on their behalf by government authorities. Guidance in how to make those decisions - how to weigh up and choose among many good uses of one's time & resources.

Objectivism already provides that guidance. It doesn't simply advocate "less government".

Being objective is just the start - one has to integrate subjectivity into the mix as well in order to make those kinds of decisions. That is something I think a philosophy of Individualism ought to address.

Objectivism isn't the same as "being objective". You're equivocating.

Edited March 19, 2009 by brian0918

[AllMenAreIslands]

Your argument about "selfish" regards linguistics, not philosophy. The underlying concept is the same regardless of what word you use to reference it.

As for the word specifically, other words that were used in the past in place of "selfish" are self-ended and self-ful.

Objectivism already provides that guidance. It doesn't simply advocate "less government".

Objectivism isn't the same as "being objective". You're equivocating.

Just linguistics, eh? Is the underlying concept the same? I am not sure I agree with you. Does "self-interest" or "self-sustained, self-generated" carry as much baggage as "selfish"? If not, why not?

As for your last point (about equivocation), you're probably right. I was groping towards an idea that would represent the next step. There are a lot of questions that people have about Objectivism. What do the answers that people offer at this site, for example, represent? Is the act of taking what Ayn Rand said and trying to explain to the questioners actually part of Objectivism, or is it a step towards the development of the next step in philosophy?

As I said in my previous post, I think Individualism would be a great name for a philosophy. It could also be a great name for a political movement. It represents to me the logical next step.