How to Join the Strike!

[softwareNerd]

No, it's not. AS isn't telling readers to quit their jobs anymore than 1984 is telling them to ignore everything on television because it's just a fabrication by the Party. They're both works of fiction set in dystopias. A dystopia is a fictional future, very different from the author's and his readers' present.

I agree. In addition, AS would not have been the book it is if Galt and his pals had decided to go live somewhere in the wild, ... end-of-story.

Rand asks the reader to believe that those three had a realistic shot at "stopping the motor of the world"; she also asks the reader to believe that -- even in isolation -- they would be able to practice their professions to a very high degree of quality, even though they were giving up the scale/quantity. These two things ask for quite some suspension-of-disbelief, and that's perfectly fine. Without these two assumptions, the evaluation changes drastically.

[Plasmatic]

SoftwareNerd said:

"Rand asks the reader to believe that those three had a realistic shot at "stopping the motor of the world"; she also asks the reader to believe that -- even in isolation -- they would be able to practice their professions to a very high degree of quality, even though they were giving up the scale/quantity. These two things ask for quite some suspension-of-disbelief, and that's perfectly fine. Without these two assumptions, the evaluation changes drastically. "

Yes, without the ray screen the whole idea loses its quality.

[JASKN]

It's important to note that John Galt, Rand's fictional hero, lead by example. He didn't show up at Rearden's house with the speech "There's a fictional novel in which several characters transform their lives. Your should do the same.". His speech started with "Hi, my name is John Galt, here's what I did and why. If you agree, you're welcome to join me.".

It was actually Francisco who showed up at Rearden's mills. (Where's the little bitch smiley?)

[JASKN]

Yes, without the ray screen the whole idea loses its quality.

Not just the ray screen, but the whole new life they were able to build, like sNerd said. The point is that if you're going to write a book saying that morality and principles are created to "enjoy life," as Rand writes in Atlas Shrugged, you can't depict your characters giving up hugely successful lives for a crappy, unhappy existence as a woods scavenger.

[Plasmatic]

Im saying the whole life they were able to build was only made possible because of the ray screen. Galts Gultch wouldn't have existed without it.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Plasmatic

[Harrison Danneskjold]

P.S. I would be curious to find out how OP goes about following his own advice.

Yeah, that occurred to me, too.  I generally agreed with the principles in the article but, to be frank, fast food and an internet connection still improve my life more than the government detracts from it.

I'd be very interested in hearing any suggestion on getting the best of both worlds.

 

There is nothing in the ideas presented in AS that, applied to our current context, would lead a rational individual to quit their job and withdraw from the overt economy. And there is irrefutable evidence of that: the fact that Ayn Rand never withdrew from the American economy, nor did she ever shun the US government. Far from it: she CHOSE the US as her country.

She filed her taxes by every April 15, just like everyone else. Not because she refused to live by her own advice, but because there is nothing in any of her works to suggest that anyone should do otherwise.

Will that still support your conclusion in a century; that Ayn Rand lived here and never decided to quit?

I don't think we're in this dystopian future yet and I'm not actually advocating that anyone should try getting "off the grid"; I think it's up to each individual to decide where that point is.  I am saying that what he described is the actual and literal application of Galt's Gulch (except for the bit about piracy), although it's by no means being applied to a similar context.

 

I'm not denying that you could compare (or contrast) the two philosophies. I am saying, however, that certain philosophies have necessary attributes that are contradictory to the necessary attributes of other philosophies, and it is nonsensical then to try to combine the two, because you would be forced to throw out one or more of the necessary attributes from at least one of the philosophies, and you would no longer have that philosophy, because you need all the necessary attributes in order to constitute said philosophy.

Agreed, although I disagree about which attributes are necessary.

 

It's not as if various ideas were culled from the universe of ideas and then thrown together with no rhyme or reason. There's a reason why objectivism holds to a monopoly on the use of force. It's deducted from the axioms and core principles of objectivism.

True, but the implicit premise is that they were all deducted correctly (and that anyone who disagrees through similarly flawed reasoning has nothing to do with the philosophy).

How far would that extend?  Politics, apparently; what about Rand's taste in art?  Why not homosexuality, way down in ethics?

 

You can't just remove some pieces and put in others as though they were Legos and still claim to have objectivism. 

What does the concept of "Objectivism" refer to and what's the proper method of concept-formation?

I know Peikoff once defined Objectivism as the "philosophy of Ayn Rand" but that's such an obtuse nonessential it isn't even funny.  If memory serves Rand embraced mysticism on her deathbed; if Objectivism actually refers to what she herself literally thought, and nothing else, then why didn't anyone realize this fundamental transformation had taken place?

 

When people use anticoncepts to designate nonessentials, they implicitly infer the true meaning instead.

 

So in our daily, informal usage, what do we use "Objectivism" or "Objectivist" to refer to?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The whole idea of open Objectivism is so stupid I 'don't see how it persist.

 

Excellent.  I see you comprehend the viscious immorality of homosexuality and the metaphysical inferiority of women.

And how could anyone openly disagree with Leonard Peikoff, the rightfully chosen keeper of the philosophy, and dare to call themselves adherents?

---

 

What I cannot grasp is how many of her ideas, not to even mention all of her associates', people can throw out while still calling it a closed system.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

No, I take it back; I understand exactly how people can do that.

 

They do it by declaring which of her ideas were actually part of her philosophy, and which were really unrelated, and then thoroughly compartmentalizing.  Tell the Conservatives I said hello.

[thenelli01]

I know Peikoff once defined Objectivism as the "philosophy of Ayn Rand" but that's such an obtuse nonessential it isn't even funny.  If memory serves Rand embraced mysticism on her deathbed; if Objectivism actually refers to what she herself literally thought, and nothing else, then why didn't anyone realize this fundamental transformation had taken place?

 

Source?

[Plasmatic]

Harrison asked for some more with:

"Excellent. I see you comprehend the viscious immorality of homosexuality and the metaphysical inferiority of women.

And how could anyone openly disagree with Leonard Peikoff, the rightfully chosen keeper of the philosophy, and dare to call themselves adherents?

---

What I cannot grasp is how many of her ideas, not to even mention all of her associates', people can throw out while still calling it a closed system."

Hehe..... Here we go again. Tell me big man, how does ANY of that have anything to do with what I actually personally said ? I agreed explicitly that I have disagreements and that I don't call those points of disagreement Objectivism! You know, like the way Leonard Peikoff, the heir of her estate, makes it clear that HIS work is his own and NOT Objectivism! Her "associates" comprise her philosophy now too? Your strawmen would be offensive if they weren't so obtuse.

Edit: How does one discarding the idea that homosexuality is immoral, wether its a part of objectivism,or not, have to do with one considering Oist to be closed??? The two are not mutually exclusive. Your ridiculous premise is that one cannot disagree with anything Ayn Rand said AND think its a closed system...that is, one cannot disagree with someones premise and still consider that the other persons premise.

I cant dislike a particular Nike shoe model while believing that the model is still a Nike?....... Em kay

Edited October 29, 2013 by Plasmatic

[JASKN]

Excellent. I see you comprehend the viscious immorality of homosexuality and the metaphysical inferiority of women.

And how could anyone openly disagree with Leonard Peikoff, the rightfully chosen keeper of the philosophy, and dare to call themselves adherents?

There is at least one exhaustive thread here dedicated to Objectivism as a "closed" vs. "open" system. In essence, the ideas which make up Rand's philosophy of Objectivism are hers, and she named it as her philosophy. That doesn't mean there are no more ideas in the entire universe! It just means other ideas aren't "Objectivism."

[JASKN]

Im saying the whole life they were able to build was only made possible because of the ray screen. Galts Gultch wouldn't have existed without it.

...plus the copper deposits, land for farming, enough space for many houses, shale oil deposits... Edited October 29, 2013 by JASKN

[Plasmatic]

Jaskn, in not exluding those things. My point is that, while one can have those things in life now, one cannot have the equivalent of a ray screen to enable them to use those things to form a Galts Gultch.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Source?

Did a quick internet search; apparently a mistaken one.  Wasn't the case.

 

You know, like the way Leonard Peikoff, the heir of her estate, makes it clear that HIS work is his own and NOT Objectivism!

Ah.  Like Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

 

Your ridiculous premise is that one cannot disagree with anything Ayn Rand said AND think its a closed system...that is, one cannot disagree with someones premise and still consider that the other persons premise.

Wrong.

You cannot simultaneously call yourself an Objectivist, disagree with Objectivist principles and still call the system closed.  That's my ridiculous premise.

 

 

How does one discarding the idea that homosexuality is immoral, wether its a part of objectivism,or not, have to do with one considering Oist to be closed???

It's a general principle derived from antecedent principles by Ayn Rand.  If the system is closed then no Objectivist may dispute it.

How a moral abstraction could become detached from philosophy I'm not touching with a 39.5 foot pole.

[softwareNerd]

If memory serves Rand embraced mysticism on her deathbed; if Objectivism actually refers to what she herself literally thought, and nothing else, then why didn't anyone realize this fundamental transformation had taken place?

I'm not sure if you're using satire, implying that some people talk about what Rand did just before she died, or if you're actually making it yourself.

If the latter. I'm yet to see a reliable source for this -- including the other accusation that Objectivism drove her mad before she died. Not important though.

The lack of source is actually not important in this case, because it really would not matter even if perfectly well-documented. Anyone who has had actual real-life experience with people who turn very senile and sometimes even psychotic when cancer or some other disease brings them close to death understands that what they say is not to be taken as some new idea from a properly reasoning human mind.

Take the much more common example: that there are no atheists in fox-holes. Not true, but ... even if this were true, do you think it is of any cognitive significance? Answer: nope.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Software Nerd:  It was something I had heard at one point and didn't actually check until now (couldn't find anything about it on the internet, so I'll take that as a definitive "no"). 

And it wouldn't be relevant at all except in relation to this "closed system" idea.

[softwareNerd]

And it wouldn't be relevant at all except in relation to this "closed system" idea.

No it wouldn;t. That's my point. Whether it actually happened is not important precisely because it would have no bearing whatsoever on the closed system idea. Edited October 29, 2013 by softwareNerd

[Harrison Danneskjold]

No it wouldn;t. That's my point. Whether it actually happened is not important precisely because it would have no bearing whatsoever on the closed system idea.

I really hesitate to take this further down the rabbit hole (sorry) but I really don't follow.

If Objectivism is defined as what Ayn Rand said and Ayn Rand completely changed her mind about everything at the last minute (which she didn't, but if so) then why wouldn't Objectivism change to match?

[Plasmatic]

Harrison said:

"Ah. Like Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand."

Yeah, like OPAR where he said:

"Since she did not live to see it, however, she is not

responsible for any misstatements of her views it

may contain, nor can the book be properly described

as "official Objectivist doctrine." "Objectivism" is the

name of Ayn Rand's philosophy as presented in the

material she herself wrote or endorsed."

Harrison said:

"You cannot simultaneously call yourself an Objectivist, disagree with Objectivist principles and still call the system closed. That's my ridiculous premise."

Im not going to continue in this thread on "open" Objectivism, except to say that there is a difference between a principle and the application of that principle. The difference is not a matter of compartmentalization but objective differentiation.

Edit;

Harrison said:

"I really hesitate to take this further down the rabbit hole (sorry) but I really don't follow.

If Objectivism is defined as what Ayn Rand said and Ayn Rand completely changed her mind about everything at the last minute (which she didn't, but if so) then why wouldn't Objectivism change to match?"

Because there is a difference between someones published philosophy and their personal application of it in any given respect at any given time.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Plasmatic

[softwareNerd]

If Objectivism is defined as what Ayn Rand said and Ayn Rand completely changed her mind about everything at the last minute (which she didn't, but if so) then why wouldn't Objectivism change to match?

I haven't heard the most dogmatic Rand fans say that Objectivism is equivalent to "what Ayn Rand said". Even they would readily concede that both sides of any detected contradiction cannot be counted as Objectivism, that something she mused about and was tentative about but did not seem to conclude -- e.g. by refusing to publish it, lecture about it, etc. was not Objectivism. What if she said or wrote something under the influence of drugs? Similarly, if she had gone senile, and was to be found in her last hours counting the beads of a Russian rosary, having converted after the visit of a priest, would we conclude -- given that this was contradictory to preceding stuff -- that "Objectivism equals christianity"? Nobody would argue that way, not the most rabidly dogmatic fan...so, to use this is simply to raise a strawman.

Anyhow, I agree that the thread is straying from the "living off the grid" discussion.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Im not going to continue in this thread on "open" Objectivism, except to say that there is a difference between a principle and the application of that principle. The difference is not a matter of compartmentalization but objective differentiation.

The difference between the abstract and the concrete?

 

"I really hesitate to take this further down the rabbit hole (sorry) but I really don't follow.

If Objectivism is defined as what Ayn Rand said and Ayn Rand completely changed her mind about everything at the last minute (which she didn't, but if so) then why wouldn't Objectivism change to match?"

Because there is a difference between someones published philosophy and their personal application of it in any given respect at any given time.

Is it the "published" or the "application" part?  Because I can see the difference between applying a general principle to a specific situation and "homosexuality" is still conceptual.  Is it that it was published?

 

I haven't heard the most dogmatic Rand fans say that Objectivism is equivalent to "what Ayn Rand said". Even they would readily concede that both sides of any detected contradiction cannot be counted as Objectivism, that something she mused about and was tentative about but did not seem to conclude -- e.g. by refusing to publish it, lecture about it, etc. was not Objectivism. What if she said or wrote something under the influence of drugs? Similarly, if she had gone senile, and was to be found in her last hours counting the beads of a Russian rosary, having converted after the visit of a priest, would we conclude -- given that this was contradictory to preceding stuff -- that "Objectivism equals christianity"? Nobody would argue that way, not the most rabidly dogmatic fan...so, to use this is simply to raise a strawman.

You have a point about drugs and senility.  "Consciousness" is slightly important.  Anyway, if contradictions are included in the criteria then I don't think it would really be closed.  It wasn't my intention to raise strawmen.

 

There is at least one exhaustive thread here dedicated to Objectivism as a "closed" vs. "open" system. In essence, the ideas which make up Rand's philosophy of Objectivism are hers, and she named it as her philosophy. That doesn't mean there are no more ideas in the entire universe! It just means other ideas aren't "Objectivism."

And that would make perfect sense.

And if so then all these derivative little "postObjectivisms" and "AnarchObjectivisms" should be just fine, as they are.

---

 

Yes, there are thousands of other words in the English language and yes, these people really should have a bit more creativity.  The thing that really bothers me is when people- people who like to think they hold Rand's ideas!- get so wrapped up in politics that they declare a rational, realistic and selfish philosophy to be diametrically opposed to Objectivism, over something so comparatively trivial.

 

Anyhow, I agree that the thread is straying from the "living off the grid" discussion.

Sorry.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The conflict of reason versus mysticism is the issue of life or death—of freedom or slavery—of progress or stagnant brutality. Or, to put it another way, it is the conflict of consciousness versus unconsciousness.  -Rand,  Faith and Force

It all rises or falls on Reason; that's the most important aspect of the entire thing.

So when some guy runs out there with his own philosophy and we're comparing its similarities and differences to Oism, let's focus on the essentials.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Nicky]

Will that still support your conclusion in a century; that Ayn Rand lived here and never decided to quit?

Yes, if I was alive and healthy in 2113, I would still happily be productive in an economic system that managed to produce the tech and services that made it possible. Such a system would obviously be nothing like the dystopia from Atlas Shrugged.

I am saying that what he described is the actual and literal application of Galt's Gulch (except for the bit about piracy), although it's by no means being applied to a similar context.

That's not what you said before. You keep alternating between contradictory statements. Not just with this, but with the open system discussion. In one post you're talking about Objectivist principles, in another "anything Rand or her associates ever said on any subject".

It's a general principle derived from antecedent principles by Ayn Rand. If the system is closed then no Objectivist may dispute it.

How a moral abstraction could become detached from philosophy I'm not touching with a 39.5 foot pole.

Let's say for a moment that the scientific debate is settled, and homosexuality is a purely psychological phenomenon (as opposed to a biological one, which there is a strong case for).

Psychology is still not a "moral abstraction". Psychology is not Ethics. Psychology is a consequence of biology at least as much as philosophy. It's not philosophy.

Homosexuality is not philosophy, it's either biology or, at most, psychology. It has nothing to do with Objectivism. Rand's views on it have nothing to do with Objectivism. Objectivism is a closed system because it's the philosophy of Ayn Rand, not Rand's views on everything under the Sun.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Nicky

[Plasmatic]

Nicky said:

" Objectivism is a closed system because it's the philosophy of Ayn Rand"

I would add, "as published by her".

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I don't think we're in this dystopian future yet and I'm not actually advocating that anyone should try getting "off the grid"; I think it's up to each individual to decide where that point is.  I am saying that what he described is the actual and literal application of Galt's Gulch (except for the bit about piracy), although it's by no means being applied to a similar context.

That's not what you said before. You keep alternating between contradictory statements. Not just with this, but with the open system discussion. In one post you're talking about Objectivist principles, in another "anything Rand or her associates ever said on any subject".

 

Nicky: Are you serious about AS?

Ayn Rand would never have advocated piracy, but the essence of his suggestion is EXACTLY what Atlas Shrugged depicted- right down to "quit your job!"

---

 

Homosexuality is not philosophy, it's either biology or, at most, psychology. It has nothing to do with Objectivism. Rand's views on it have nothing to do with Objectivism.

Declaring something to be immoral is a moral abstraction.