theestevearnold Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Closed. AR named her philosophy Objectivism and never implied it's a living, breathing document. If a person or committee, all of whom weren't appointed by AR, decide to make a "correction," and I don't accept it as valid, there become two or more Objectivisms. If anybody wants to "correct" Objectivism, please give your results a new name, so there's no confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) Still don't know what all the fuss was about. 1. Ayn Rand = creator and intellectual proprietor; 2. Interested scholars have the right to publish their interpretations and criticisms of her philosophy. Are these in the least arguable? Not having read very much of David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff, the amount I have furthered my understanding-for which I'm thankful to each. As a non-scholar, I've rather referred back to the original works. When this all comes down to some sort of Titanic struggle for the 'soul and body' of Objectivism, then it loses my interest. Objectivism, soul and all, exists in its entirety within each individual who calls himself "Objectivist". There aren't any "sides". Edited January 3, 2014 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Still don't know what all the fuss was about. 1. Ayn Rand = sole proprietor; 2. Interested scholars publish their interpretations of her philosophy. It's right for interested scholars to publish their interpretations of her philosophy. It's wrong for anybody to edit AR's philosophy with contradictory principles and present their version as Objectivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Steve: "Wrong" - to or for whom? The original literature stands, and so for the rest, let the buyer beware. (The thinker think.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 It's wrong for anybody to edit AR's philosophy with contradictory principles and present their version as Objectivism. Well okay. But I mean, do you have an example of a person that does this? Where is an example of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Steve: "Wrong" - to or for whom? The original literature stands, and so for the rest, let the buyer beware. (The thinker think.) The wrong is commited against Miss Rand, and against my concept of intellectual property rights. She created a philosophy and named it Objectivism. If a man wrote a book presenting the philosophy of AR's Objectivism, with Christianity as one of its core tenets, the right thing to do would be to call his new philosophy by a new name. The original U.S. Constitution still stands, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Well okay. But I mean, do you have an example of a person that does this? Where is an example of this? I'd prefer to treat this as pondering the morality and ramifications of an event that could occur in the future. It would be inappropriate for me to give the real, concrete example I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 I'd prefer to treat this as pondering the morality and ramifications of an event that could occur in the future. It would be inappropriate for me to give the real, concrete example I have. Well yes, I would say that in general, it's wrong to present your own version of things, and attribute it to someone else, in the sense that it's generally wrong to misrepresent other people. I'm just not sure that is in fact what is going on. Why would it not be appropriate the give a concrete example? It's a forum for AR fans right, why would it be not okay to discuss various interpretations of AR, especially if someone appears to be misrepresenting her publications? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Why would it not be appropriate the give a concrete example? Because it involves a prominent member of a different Objectivist site. A moderator of this site made me realize that possibly creating what might seem like a cross-site tit-for-tat would be inappropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 Because it involves a prominent member of a different Objectivist site. A moderator of this site made me realize that possibly creating what might seem like a cross-site tit-for-tat would be inappropriate. Specific, concrete examples can help to clarify abstract discussion. Perhaps you could describe the claims you're referring to, without identifying who said them? After all... it doesn't really matter who makes the claim in question, whether you found them on another site or what have you. The ideas themselves are fair game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) Nothing personal, Steve, this isn't directed just against you, but you know what would be awesome? If newcomers would have to have at least 100 posts or 3 months spent on the forum before having the right to start new threads. Or at least new threads without prior approval by a mod. (have a dedicated thread where people can post their ideas for new threads, and if deemed thread worthy, mods can start them for them). That would really encourage use of the search function. Note that I'm not bothered by these threads; it's not difficult for me to simply ignore them - in fact I'm doing it. But it's a wasted opportunity...I would love to participate in a new conversation, that's built on things others and I have talked about before...But I have no desire to have the same conversation all over again. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. Edited January 3, 2014 by Nicky Hairnet 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 This earlier thread "Objectivism: Closed system" camer up in search, though I'm sure one will find related discussion all over the place. In addition, there is this series of 5 posts by one member, forming a position-paper of sorts, title "Closed System vs. Open System" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted January 3, 2014 Report Share Posted January 3, 2014 The wrong is commited against Miss Rand, and against my concept of intellectual property rights. She created a philosophy and named it Objectivism. If a man wrote a book presenting the philosophy of AR's Objectivism, with Christianity as one of its core tenets, the right thing to do would be to call his new philosophy by a new name. The original U.S. Constitution still stands, The sole justice one can do Ayn Rand is to apply Objectivism to one's own life, then to have the integrity to freely and openly acknowledge her works as contributing to one's subsequent knowledge and thriving.. Not trying to be funny (and not directed at you) but Rand is not 'watching us' - this, sub-consciously, is a mind-set which leads to intrinsicism, I think. Every person comes to Objectivism his singular way, and then finds his own way through it, integrating it into his own life and mind. Its value requires a valuer who pursues it deeper with the necessary effort; it is not an instant formula for success, or some divine 'revelation'. (Which I think should not be confused with the 'inspiration' and truth we all recognised on first reading.) Intellectual property. If ARI or any O'ist organisation should sue anyone for totally misrepresenting Objectivism - and named it "Objectivism"- - well, no argument from me. But it hasn't happened that I know of, and if it did, so what? You'll know the difference, I'd know the difference. That's what counts. As for the so-called critics - they seem to come and go. In 5years of foruming I have yet to see a convincing assault on Objectivism. The intellectuals who do try, either misunderstand it, or deliberately misinterpret it. Others with honesty and knowledge have questioned or fine-tuned deep abstractions I can barely grasp, but it all only serves to strengthen conviction in the "immutable core" of the philosophy. (Now I actively seek out criticism : Bring it on! But at least come with an original or challenging argument this time...) Because I consider this schism- kerfuffle to, at least partially, revolve around confidence and self-confidence: a. Does one have confidence in the truth and longevity of the philosophy? b. Does one have confidence in one's own mind? c. Does one have confidence in other people's minds? Only c. is outside of one's control. On principle though, it must be self-interested and just, to assume a person on first acquaintance to have an independent mind ( until otherwise known). Several do, but with many, one isn't ever going to convince them and should learn when to give up trying. Though it is a selfish goal is to be surrounded by rational people, to make it a life mission is hardly rationally selfish. I relate some of that early strife within O'ism to this being a young philosophy, and like with anything young and untested, one feels some over-protectedness. Time to get past that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninth Doctor Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 To the OP: you haven't demonstrated any familiarity with the topic, and there's a lot of reading you'll need to do if you want to take it on. Here's a great site with links to all the relevant material from both sides: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/ari-toc.html Take your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninth Doctor Posted January 4, 2014 Report Share Posted January 4, 2014 Here's a great site with links to all the relevant material from both sides: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/ari-toc.html BTW, as far as reading order what you ought to do is start with David Kelley's A Question of Sanction, particularly its final paragraph, which is what touched off the open/closed debate. Since that's now an appendix to The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand I'm reproducing it here for your convenience: Ayn Rand left us a magnificent system of ideas. But it is not a closed system. It is a powerful engine of integration. Let us not starve it of fuel by shutting our minds to what is good in other approaches. Let us test our ideas in open debate. If we are right, we have nothing to fear; if we are wrong, we have something to learn. Above all, let us encourage independent thought among ourselves. Let us welcome dissent, and the restless ways of the explorers among us. Nine out of ten new ideas will be mistakes, but the tenth will let in the light. Now move on to Leonard Peikoff's Fact and Value: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv (scroll to near the bottom, find the paragraph starting with the bolded words IN HIS LAST PARAGRAPH) Then Contested Legacy: http://www.atlassociety.org/sites/default/files/The_Contested_Legacy_of_Ayn_Rand.pdf Chapter 5 is where you'll find the relevant material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Closed. AR named her philosophy Objectivism and never implied it's a living, breathing document. What is a philosophy? Since Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, before you declare it "closed" I think you should identify what it is that you're closing. For example, on the subject of "reason," thus spake Rand: "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses." -Objectivist Ethics, the Virtue of Selfishness Now the Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." The first question is whether these two definitions, of "reason" and of "science," are actually synonymous (and therefore interchangeable). Because if "Objectivism" refers exclusively to the words Rand herself wrote then there's no Objectivist basis for "science" unless she specifically mentioned one. And if so then Objectivism doesn't recognize the right to bear arms, either (if memory serves). But if words should be used to refer to concepts, then clearly the "scientific method" refers to the same concept which "reason" does. You follow? Because if "Objectivism" refers to the ideas of Ayn Rand, then what would it mean for them to be "open" or "closed"? What is a "closed" idea and did Rand herself ever mention one, or the alternative. . . ? Edited March 4, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 4, 2014 Report Share Posted March 4, 2014 Still don't know what all the fuss was about. 1. Ayn Rand = creator and intellectual proprietor; 2. Interested scholars have the right to publish their interpretations and criticisms of her philosophy. Are these in the least arguable? Yes, depending on: 1. Ayn Rand = creator and intellectual proprietor [OF?] Objectivism, soul and all, exists in its entirety within each individual who calls himself "Objectivist". And that's actually my reasoning behind the "open system" assertion, approximately. I would only specify that this title must be earned by living in a manner which it is applicable to. My primary point of contention is whether accepting any "closed" set of ideas is compatible with a single thing Rand ever advocated. If someone accepts Objectivism as true, they will have (to the extent of my own knowledge) found the proper philosophy to live by. But if they accept it as a closed issue and not to be examined again- is that actually living by it? The sole justice one can do Ayn Rand is to apply Objectivism to one's own life, then to have the integrity to freely and openly acknowledge her works as contributing to one's subsequent knowledge and thriving. I have nothing to add to that; only wanted to see it repeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted March 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Since Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, before you declare it "closed" I think you should identify what it is that you're closing. For example, on the subject of "reason," thus spake Rand: "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses." -Objectivist Ethics, the Virtue of Selfishness I used "closed" in the sense that, as you said: "Since Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand," I say that nobody else has the right to change the above quote from VOS in any way that would alter her intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 The essays and writings of Ayn Rand fell short of completely and thoroughly diagramming her philosophy. The task of transcribing it was left to others, primarily Leonard Peikoff, and other members of the Ayn Rand Institute. Peikoff was designated Ayn's intellectual heir, and therefore one could regard him as the authority on interpreting Objectivism in our time. In his absence, could anyone else be that authority? I believe anyone who understands that basic tenets of Objectivism and applies them in their life is an authority. The choices they make reflect that authority. Whether they are capable of simple explanations for their decisions or complex diatribes on the subject of metaphysics, the individual that is living the philosophy with the confidence that they fully understand why they are living it is the new authority. In this respect, Objectivism is a living philosophy. It will endure; new generations will adapt it to their new lives, as they do to new technologies. Is Objectivism a "closed system"? After reading enough of Rand's writings, one understands her intent. It helps to understand the historical context of the times in which she wrote. My point is that life in a open system. If one aspires to reach the heights of their potential, I urge them to find the philosophy that provides both the guidance and the justification for that guidance. My actions are guided by objective reality. If acquaintances wish to know if I give my philosophy a name, I tell them: Objectivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Peikoff was designated Ayn's intellectual heir, and therefore one could regard him as the authority on interpreting Objectivism in our time. There is no evidence that he was designated an intellectual heir. Just something important to know that is commonly taken for granted - there is no authority on Objectivism, only Rand was and will ever be. Of course, you are the authority of your own philosophy, accepting elements of Objectivism or not. That's why I think of myself as a student of Objectivism, not an Objectivist specifically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 The very idea of "authority" related to the philosophy of Objectivism runs contrary to the philosophy itself, which is based on individual induction and verification as opposed to accepting an authority on faith, unchecked. When an Objectivist refers to another Objectivist as an "authority," surely they mean "more familiar, knowledgable, or integrated." Even once recognized as such, the "authority" still needs to be verified as right or wrong by his audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 An earlier discussion on "intellectual heir" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) I stand corrected on my application of the word, "authority." Perhaps it was a poor choice of words. To be sure, most people have never heard of Objectivism, and any mention of it may raise questions requiring answers. While I am not prepared to answer every question, most of us could answer the fundamentals. For the uninitiated, anyone able to answer basic questions about Rand and her works has more authority on the subject than someone with no idea. I am not an official authority, as in the sense of authorship or institutional leader. Mea culpa if that seemed to be what I said. No such misrepresentation was intended, although I could see how that it might. Addendum: After reading softwareNerd's post in the preceding post, perhaps it would be conceivable that one day we may all be the "intellectual heirs" of Ayn Rand. Edited March 9, 2014 by Repairman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 The very idea of "authority" related to the philosophy of Objectivism runs contrary to the philosophy itself, which is based on individual induction and verification as opposed to accepting an authority on faith, unchecked. When an Objectivist refers to another Objectivist as an "authority," surely they mean "more familiar, knowledgable, or integrated." Even once recognized as such, the "authority" still needs to be verified as right or wrong by his audience. And I've found people that come from a religious background (which is nearly *everyone* alive today) have a very hard if not impossible grasp of the above statement. They can't seem to comprehend that it's possible to come to completely agree with ideas that have been written by a person or group of people through careful reasoning and study without sort of falling into the trap of thinking that it is do to some sort of groupthink or intrinsicism. And while rejecting these ideas for just this reason they often are still accepting the religious premises for just those reasons contradictorily. That said I think this statement by Peikoff in the Preface to OPAR is accurate: "'Objectivism' is the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy as presented in the material she herself wrote or endorsed." The rest is an interpretation of that philosophy and it is up to the individual to decide if any new statements or ideas made by others are consistent with the philosophy while never being a "part" of it via careful examination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 I used "closed" in the sense that, as you said: "Since Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand," I say that nobody else has the right to change the above quote from VOS in any way that would alter her intent. And what was her intent? I agree that nobody has the moral authority to intentionally alter that quote, point blank. It's bad enough when people deliberately misrepresent the statements of the living; doing so to the dead is inexcusable. But there is a subtle difference between words as such, and the ideas they convey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.