Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The frontiers of Objectivism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

First than nothing please let me define myself: I am a frontier man

What the hell does that mean?

Well... basically that I am rarely settled down on the "center" of an idea, concept, lifestyle, etc. because I am convinced that in the "frontiers" is where the conflict and action happen. And I regard conflict as source and maintenance-energy of life.

As the poet said:

"...This way we travel

in the frontier between the past an the future

between what we are and what we can be

between what we have and what we lack

surfing life over the waves of time

sometimes turbulent, sometimes calm.

Always in the frontiers..."

The concept of the frontier I am trying to explain here is different from the grayness of "the middle of the road" which usually means trying to compromise two positions, ideas or concepts trying to democratically mixing parts of both and usually leading to nothing but confusion and ineffectiveness.

The concept of frontier instead means that you are still on one side of the road but close enough to the other side in order to understand more deeply what the other position really means and where it comes from

What bout the frontiers of Objectivism?

I would say that people on "the center" of this philosophy could be called Orthodox Objectivists and are in Leonard Peikof's thought line and similar, on the other hand different other people are trying at the same time to go closer to the frontiers, sometimes unexplored frontiers waiting to be expanded, because Ayn Rand never really put together an extensive account of all her new philosophy covering every aspect of reality, present and future. probably an impossible task for just one person no matter how brilliant because in the end any philosophy or intellectual movement is something "alive" that should adapt and grow according to the progress of the civilization

On the other hand being "orthodox" in Objectivism is some kind of contradiction because it is a philosophy that encourages independence in though and critical individualist analysis even when Ayn Rand herself would probably had not approved most of Neo Objectivist approaches whatever this loose term means

So my the question is:

Should we take further Objectivism into new frontiers?

Or should Objectivism remain frozen around only the concepts and essays already given by Ayn Rand?

Since I already said that I am a "Frontier Man" for me the answer is clear...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should we take further Objectivism into new frontiers?

Or should Objectivism remain frozen around only the concepts and essays already given by Ayn Rand?

I've never met an Objectivist who thought that philosophy ought to be limited to Rand's writing. The objection one does hear is: when you do that, don't call it "Objectivism".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Ayn Rand never really put together an extensive account of all her new philosophy covering every aspect of reality, present and future. probably an impossible task for just one person no matter how brilliant because in the end any philosophy or intellectual movement is something "alive" that should adapt and grow according to the progress of the civilization..

Im not sure exactly what you mean by this, but Im pretty sure I disagree.

j..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never met an Objectivist who thought that philosophy ought to be limited to Rand's writing. The objection one does hear is: when you do that, don't call it "Objectivism".

^---This

...Ayn Rand never really put together an extensive account of all her new philosophy covering every aspect of reality, present and future. probably an impossible task for just one person no matter how brilliant because in the end any philosophy or intellectual movement is something "alive" that should adapt and grow according to the progress of the civilization..

I also think I disagree with this statement. She certainly laid all of the necessary foundations for us to, using reason, extrapolate the proper conclusions on more or less any subject. While some things are more difficult than others, and some things require some barriers of our time and knowledge to fall into rubble, we do have an extensive foundation built exclusively by Rand, and in essence that is all we really need.

If you want an "overall examination" spoonfed to you, there is Peikoff's book: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR) which is basically notes taken over one of her lectures, and so is, in essence, essentially one of her works relayed.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in the context of its time in human history, Objectivism was specifically about the issue of pioneering new frontiers. So should I begin by asking whether the children should stay in Mother-Ayn's nest?

I think her issue is of how pioneering couldn't happen in the con-fines of this or that 'societal system.' If we're breaking new ground today and putting the unchecked premises in check. Please let ME begin by asking what the hell it should ultimately matter if people are highly differentiated as individuals or all rather john galtish.

I think human ability is totally taken for granted in Objectivism because it upholds the -serious- importance of money. And "we don't have to take any of it seriously" is a brief sideline.

Isn't money ultimately a trivial issue in a benevolent world? That is, one in which most/all people have a general understanding of the 'wealth' of human knowledge, and a needy person is an absurdly easy fix to think twice about.

I say that there's no "Serious" necessity of a money system to 'get there' to our super-duper heroes, or for a world of them even. It exists now, so people work that way and accomplish by the means of money. That's like one generation of good parenting and kids with the heritage to care less about it and correct it all.

Someone feel free to bitchsmack me if they think that's over zealous or something. Don't say I didn't tell you so when we get knowledge and attitudes by the flick of a switch, matrix style. :lol:

Edited by Skipyrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think I disagree with this statement. She certainly laid all of the necessary foundations for us to, using reason, extrapolate the proper conclusions on more or less any subject. While some things are more difficult than others, and some things require some barriers of our time and knowledge to fall into rubble, we do have an extensive foundation built exclusively by Rand, and in essence that is all we really need.

If you want an "overall examination" spoonfed to you, there is Peikoff's book: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR) which is basically notes taken over one of her lectures, and so is, in essence, essentially one of her works relayed.

Agreed of course that Ms Rand certainly laid all of the necessary foundations for us, but the key word of my statement is "extensive" or should I have used "exhaustive" which probably express better my point

I have to add that I have read very interesting essays from David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, etc. which I mostly agree with or from which I have learn important ideas, in despite that both men are "excommunicated" from the orthodox line of Objectivism.

In the end each one of us has to take responsibility for our own ideas and opinions, integrating them into our unique mental structure and defending them with reason and logic. I love by example the book "The God part of the brain" from Matthew Alper which I consider scientific enough and explaining a lot of things about religions, even when much Objectivists despise it (some without having really read the book)

As I said Ms Rand laid the foundations but the rest is responsibility of each one and certainly there will disagreement and conflict:

GOOD! I love discussions :)

Edited by Tonix777
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in the context of its time in human history, Objectivism was specifically about the issue of pioneering new frontiers. So should I begin by asking whether the children should stay in Mother-Ayn's nest?

The concept of Laissez Faire Economics was not Rands, Individual rights were not her creation. A is A was ancient thought... She brought a bunch of fragments together to create Objectivism but the pieces were lying around waiting for her. We might be able to bring things "into the nest" to use your analogy but I am unaware that there is any need to move from it. If you disagree, tell me what is missing.

I think her issue is of how pioneering couldn't happen in the con-fines of this or that 'societal system.' If we're breaking new ground today and putting the unchecked premises in check. Please let ME begin by asking what the hell it should ultimately matter if people are highly differentiated as individuals or all rather john galtish.
?

I think human ability is totally taken for granted in Objectivism because it upholds the -serious- importance of money. And "we don't have to take any of it seriously" is a brief sideline.

How exactly do you think the characters in AS were able to achieve? It wasn't money that made them able it was ability that made them money. Do you think that the Paris Hilton's of this world would earn an Objectivist's admiration or would they reserve that for someone more like Bill Gates? Take a quick poll... Who the O'ists here admire more... Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan.

Isn't money ultimately a trivial issue in a benevolent world? That is, one in which most/all people have a general understanding of the 'wealth' of human knowledge, and a needy person is an absurdly easy fix to think twice about.

I say that there's no "Serious" necessity of a money system to 'get there' to our super-duper heroes, or for a world of them even. It exists now, so people work that way and accomplish by the means of money. That's like one generation of good parenting and kids with the heritage to care less about it and correct it all.

Someone feel free to bitchsmack me if they think that's over zealous or something. Don't say I didn't tell you so when we get knowledge and attitudes by the flick of a switch, matrix style. :)

Money is a trivial issue. But all the knowledge and benevolence in the world won't teach a man to think for himself and to help himself if every step of the way someone more driven and more industrious gives him everything he needs. That leads to the Greek solution... "We want our free stuff!" they shout, blanking out that their "free stuff" isn't free and that there are so many begging to be entitled that the rest are drowning (benevolently) in their greedy selfless need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in the context of its time in human history, Objectivism was...

...when we get knowledge and attitudes by the flick of a switch, matrix style. :)

Skipyrite honestly I didn't understand what the hell are you talking about...

Anyway to put it more clear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely think that's exactly the opposite of the result, Zip. All the knowledge and benevolence in the world, does not, a spoiled child make. But more scientifically, it's a matter of study and psychology. An understanding of the human mind, genetics, (sugar spice and everything nice) the ingredients to make the perfect world.

You bring Paris, Woods, and Tiger in there, but it's the same issue of minor ability (im just saying, in light of my fantasy above, we ALL could be a hell of a lot more)

And that's basically it, Tonyx. Ayn fielded this pioneer spirit on a rational and american foundation, and that was the big deal of it. But I think she's supremely guilty for taking it to serious in the manner of it seeming like this horrific impossibility that all the Objectivists run around screaming about it not happening, and no frontiers are broken in that fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely think that's exactly the opposite of the result, Zip. All the knowledge and benevolence in the world, does not, a spoiled child make. But more scientifically, it's a matter of study and psychology. An understanding of the human mind, genetics, (sugar spice and everything nice) the ingredients to make the perfect world.

Really? In Canada we have a group of people who don't pay taxes, are given housing, free education, their own governmental systems and other special dispensations for absolutely nothing but an accident of birth and guess what... their communities are rife with poverty, addictions, graft, corruption and crime. They are little pockets of the third world inside of my country. Show me one single solitary instance where giving what should be earned has produced the utopia you speak of.

You bring Paris, Woods, and Tiger in there, but it's the same issue of minor ability (im just saying, in light of my fantasy above, we ALL could be a hell of a lot more)

Well there's a Freudian slip, you mentioned what I would hold up as the looses of the bunch I mentioned, but failed to name the winners. These are the ones who either lack ability (Hilton) or act on whim (Woods) they aren't the pinnacle the ones who achieved like Gates and Jordan are the more you speak of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my the question is:

Should we take further Objectivism into new frontiers?

Or should Objectivism remain frozen around only the concepts and essays already given by Ayn Rand?

Since I already said that I am a "Frontier Man" for me the answer is clear...

The only way to preserve Objectivism is to accept a clear standard of what is and isn't Objectivism. The only standard we can all agree on is the one Dr. Peikoff and ARI set: Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Otherwise, all you'll have is an amalgam of contradictory works, with no one to judge their validity or value. You are free to expand on Objectivism, but do it under your own name. Don't attach your work to something we can all agree is great, let it stand on its own merit, for everyone to judge it separately from Rand's work.

That's a frontier man. Someone who blatantly contradicts Rand and fails to honestly distinguish himself from her philosophy, is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to preserve Objectivism is to accept a clear standard of what is and isn't Objectivism. The only standard we can all agree on is the one Dr. Peikoff and ARI set: Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Otherwise, all you'll have is an amalgam of contradictory works, with no one to judge their validity or value. You are free to expand on Objectivism, but do it under your own name. Don't attach your work to something we can all agree is great, let it stand on its own merit, for everyone to judge it separately from Rand's work.

That's a frontier man. Someone who blatantly contradicts Rand and fails to honestly distinguish himself from her philosophy, is not.

Good point, but still if someone's work is strongly based on Objectivism then the label should reflect this: Neo-objectivism perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Either you agree or not, theres no neo-agreeing. If your beleifs coincide with Objectivism, they are objectivist, if not, thats fine too, but its not Objectivism, neo or otherwise. I think Rands razor could be applied here.

j..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonix: The problems Branden and David Kelley have with Objectivism are problems of their own creation. Peikoff and the ARI are quite 'hip' enough to bring true actual Objectivism to the masses without compromising the essence of the philosophy to do it, like Branden and Kelley advocate. David Kelley is shining a laser pointer on Leonard Peikoff and you're chasing it down like a cat. Peikoff already opposes "Orthodox" and "Dogmatist" Objectivism and Objectivists and frequently points out what he dislikes about "Orthodox" Objectivists in his podcasts, which could all actually be described as Leonard Peikoff going on new "frontiers" of philosophy by answering the questions of laymen. Objectivism is full and complete essentially, and one only needs to understand the essence of a philosophical system in order to apply it consistently in one's life, and that applies in 1850, now, and will apply in 2150. Instead of getting distracted by the 'Closed system, open system' debate, which is only there as an inflammatory distraction set up by David Kelley to win more people to his "side" of Objectivism, why not study what Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have written and judge them in their own light, without the criticisms of Kelley and Branden, and decide for yourself what you agree with and disagree with, and upon learning the latter, discuss those particulars with fellow Objectivists, read Tara Smith and other Objectivist writers, and find if the answer hasn't already been figured out. Otherwise I'm afraid you will be far away from any "Frontiers" in Objectivism, but will find yourself following a course designed and laid out to keep you from fully developing.

As far as Skipyrite goes: I'm almost positive he's some form of Yudkowskyite rationalist.

Skipyrite: You allude to some bright future of benevolence like future circumstances will change the fundamental nature of human psychology. It's very simple: When people, just like ducks you feed bread to, get stuff they didn't earn...they like it, and they look for more of it. They keep coming back to see if you'll give them anymore, sometimes even to the detriment of their daily work, which while it could guarantee them a meal if they just work hard for a day, they would rather try their luck and see if you will give them one they just have to wait for. That will not change, no matter how far into the future you get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, but still if someone's work is strongly based on Objectivism then the label should reflect this: Neo-objectivism perhaps?

It should be left to the audience to decide what the work is, and classify it accordingly. They will anyway, but not before being bothered by the author's attempt to sell his work as something it is not (in the opinion of the audience, at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should we take further Objectivism into new frontiers?
Okay, let's go! :worry:

Let's do the kind to things that Peikoff did based on what Rand did. Let's do the kinds of things Tara Smith did. Let's do what so many other scholars are doing today. I think rational folk who are interested in philosophy should, and will pursue the truth wherever it leads.

Also, ignore the fakers. Unfortunately, there are a few folk who don't seem to offer anything new, but instead protest that rigid Objectivists somehow hold them back from developing new ideas. (As though sundry misinformed strangers can hold back a mind that is blazing with great ideas.) My advice is to you, Frontier-Man, is to ignore those fakers's complaints, and move on with to real frontiers. All the best.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let's go! :thumbsup:

Let's do the kind to things that Peikoff did based on what Rand did. Let's do the kinds of things Tara Smith did. Let's do what so many other scholars are doing today. I think rational folk who are interested in philosophy should, and will pursue the truth wherever it leads.

Also, ignore the fakers. Unfortunately, there are a few folk who don't seem to offer anything new, but instead protest that rigid Objectivists somehow hold them back from developing new ideas. (As though sundry misinformed strangers can hold back a mind that is blazing with great ideas.) My advice is to you, Frontier-Man, is to ignore those fakers's complaints, and move on with to real frontiers. All the best.

I agree!

This is an image that somehow symbolizes the idea :) Modern Ayn

Personally I also found very interesting and useful ideas in the recent work of Nathaniel Branden and David Kelley and even Matthew Alper. (I will take a look to Tara Smith's)

The key concept about ideas was given (and stressed) by Ayn Rand herself: INTEGRATION

Whatever new ideas you want to add to your mental structure have to be integrated rationally in the structure without contradiction or logical flaws. The content of your mind is YOUR responsibility and no one else's. No one else can modify its content anyway and no one else's survival or happiness depends on it, just yours.

In the case of Objectivism it is more than just an idea to be integrated into the structure, it is its foundations

Changing the foundations of your mental structure however is a HUGE personal work only suited for brave men, since it involves and put on risk even the more profound psychologic pillars of your life like your identity, purpose, values, etc.

Edited by Tonix777
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silly picture, but I agree with this post. I highly recommend Tara Smiths works if you want a solid foundation in Objectivist ethics. If you want to study more on integration, as you were saying, Harry Binswangers lectures on epistemology are always kick ass.

j..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I like the picture. I think it's in keeping with AR's 'spirit' and sense of life, and and would make a great poster!

About integration; the belief I have come to is that the person should always be bigger than his, or her, philosophy.

Which means that O'ism should be integrated into you, not you into Objectivism.

I've heard two schools of thought on this - that one should take in O'ism in a single gulp; or, that one should take it in piece by piece. I think they are both half right and half wrong.

The core principal, Rational Individualism, should be 'swallowed at one gulp' imo, and the rest will gradually integrate itself.( With study, thought, and application, over years.)

Ayn Rand said: " I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognises the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

(Well... easy to say when one is a genius B) - the rest of us will continue to need her philosophical aids).

Also, her statement is a fine example of the cruciality of 'hierarchy' in O'ism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First than nothing please let me define myself: I am a frontier man

What the hell does that mean?

Well... basically that I am rarely settled down on the "center" of an idea, concept, lifestyle, etc. because I am convinced that in the "frontiers" is where the conflict and action happen. And I regard conflict as source and maintenance-energy of life.

I suspect that the center of Objectivism is the source of more conflict than its frontiers. The center conflicts with everyone in the world, except orthodox Objectivists; the frontiers probably consists of relatively minor conflicts.

Personally, I barely even get the basics of Objectivism. It is such a hard philosophy that I am going to stay in the center. I don't think I could handle the frontiers, and I doubt many non-philosophers could either.

Edited by ctrl y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...