To be an O'ist, do you have to be an Atheist?

[Styles2112]

To say this another way: assume that existence exists on its own and without regard to consciousness; what purpose could God then have in the universe?  When you see that there is none, you see that the very idea of God is arbitrary, and must be disregarded without further consideration.

This is what I was getting at. Whether or not there is a god, it doesn't have any bearing on this philosophy (sorry for not capitilizing your little word), All that's being said is that if there was a creating force it has no bearing on the world now.

[redfarmer]

This is what I was getting at.  Whether or not there is a god, it doesn't have any bearing on this philosophy (sorry for not capitilizing your little word), All that's being said is that if there was a creating force it has no bearing on the world now.

It has everything to do with the philosophy. If you believe in a god, you are accepting that belief on faith since we both agree that the term is arbitrary. Faith is the opposite of reason. Reason is what Objectivism holds to be mans sole source of knowledge (see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology). If you believe in faith, you do not believe reason is man's sole source of knowledge.

Likewise in metaphysics. A belief in a god says that the supernatural exsists. However, that is the opposite of what Objectivism says. Objectivism says that there is no such thing as the supernatural. A is A. The supernatural would be something other than the natural.

[AisA]

From what I can tell, you don't need to be an atheist to be an objectivist.  You only need to throw the notion that God/ higher power/supernatural has anything to do with your life. 

Objectivism holds that reason is man's only means of gaining knowledge. So, the things that must be "thrown out" are all those beliefs that require the suspension of reason, i.e. all those notions that must be accepted on faith. Such notions include God, ghosts, witches, warlocks, the supernatural, etc.

I like a lot of these ideas, but subscribing to only one philosophy, and only one set of books is really no different from religion.  Maybe I missed something in those books, but I don't live my life according to Ayn Rand, I live it according to me.

Religion is a primitive form of philosophy. It is an attempt to give men a comprehensive view of life by postulating the existence of a supernatural being that created existence and defines the rules to live by.

Objectivism rejects religion because it rejects faith and acknowledges that reality exists independent of the content of anyone's consciousness, including god's. This is a fundamental difference that cannot be dismissed on the grounds that both religion and Objectivism are described by "one set of books."

What do you know about Objectivism? What have you read?

[Styles2112]

What do you know about Objectivism?  What have you read?

Very little. Mainly just this thread, which is probably why I'm so confused, because, it seems that even most of you don't agree.

I've read "Anthem,""Atlas Shrugged," and I've begun "The Virtue of Selfishness," and "The Fountainhead."

and many, many Neil Peart Lyrics.

[AisA]

Very little.  Mainly just this thread, which is probably why I'm so confused, because, it seems that even most of you don't agree. 

I've read "Anthem,""Atlas Shrugged,"  and I've begun "The Virtue of Selfishness," and "The Fountainhead."

and many, many Neil Peart Lyrics.

If you have read "Atlas Shrugged", you have read more than "very little".

What is it that you are confused about?

[JMeganSnow]

For example, Leonard Peikoff is currently working on some theories in induction which could revolutionize our understanding of it. These theories will no doubt be valuable to Objectivists. However, his theories will not be a part of Objectivism because they are a part of his philosophy, not Ayn Rand's.

Really? So, no one can add anything new to Objectivism? A lot of Objectivist intellectuals expand on certain points, add extra info etc. They aren't changing the substance of Objectivism, they are extrapolating/clarifying etc.

I could see that if someone writes something based on Objectivist principles that isn't part of philosophy per se (such as the book Kevin Delaney is working on) it could be considered an Objectivist book, but not part of Objectivism, but OPAR was written entirely by Leonard Peikoff and it is very much a part of Objectivism (in fact, it's the major presentation of Objectivism).

I'm just thinking there's a difference between small acts of fine-tuning and going off to work in an entirely different area.

[JMeganSnow]

Very little.  Mainly just this thread, which is probably why I'm so confused, because, it seems that even most of you don't agree. 

We agree on the essentials (generally), what we tend to disagree about is the nitty-gritty applications. Objectivism is a broad, abstract guide, and even if we all understood and agreed with it equally we'd STILL disagree about application because applying abstract principles is based on context and we all have different lives and thus, different context.

That was rather a run-on sentence. Oh well.

[Cole]

Very little.  Mainly just this thread, which is probably why I'm so confused, because, it seems that even most of you don't agree. 

I don't see why you'd be confused. Multiple people now have explained why theism contradicts Objectivism. Try asking specific questions on subjects that confuse you.

[Cole]

Really?  So, no one can add anything new to Objectivism?  A lot of Objectivist intellectuals expand on certain points, add extra info etc.  They aren't changing the substance of Objectivism, they are extrapolating/clarifying etc.

That's correct. Nobody can add anything new to Objectivism. Peter Schwartz addressed this issue in the Q&A portion of his recent Ayn Rand Centenary speech. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. An Objectivist theory is "Objectivist" necessarily because she created it- not necessarily because it can be derived from the axiom that A is A. Extrapolating and clarifying is different than adding.

[source]

Ok, I am new to objectivism having just recently finished Atlas Shrugged (so please be kind! ) but I was wondering, to be an Objectivist do you have to be an atheist? Can you believe in some sort of higher power and still be an objectivist?

I ask because my mother, who introduced me to Ayn Rand, is catholic and still considers herself an objectivist, yet Rand herself was an atheist along with most other objectivist.

That can only come from a person who has never really given any serious thought to either Objectivism or religion, and people who do not think about what they choose to accept as true cannot be called Objectivists. So, yes; your mother may not know it, but she is being dishonest.

The most difficult thing to explain to a non-thinking person, is the neccessity of thought. And I don't mean some random thought, but an active, focused, consciouss thinking. In Objectivism, THAT, along with embracing its principles, is the most important demand.

Merging religion and Objectivism is an act of either a non-thinking person, or of a person who rejects some of Objectivist principles. The former is lazy, go-with-the-flow kind of man, the latter is dishonest.

[redfarmer]

Really?  So, no one can add anything new to Objectivism?  A lot of Objectivist intellectuals expand on certain points, add extra info etc.  They aren't changing the substance of Objectivism, they are extrapolating/clarifying etc.

I could see that if someone writes something based on Objectivist principles that isn't part of philosophy per se (such as the book Kevin Delaney is working on) it could be considered an Objectivist book, but not part of Objectivism, but OPAR was written entirely by Leonard Peikoff and it is very much a part of Objectivism (in fact, it's the major presentation of Objectivism).

I'm just thinking there's a difference between small acts of fine-tuning and going off to work in an entirely different area.

Objectivism is defined as the philosophy of Ayn Rand. No one can add anything to Objectivism that Ayn Rand did not approve. Thus, the only books not by her which are considered a part of Objectivism are OPAR, because she approved of and was part of the lectures the book was based on, and The Ominous Parallels, because Ayn Rand read and fully approved of the book before she died.

Any other works are the works of those authors and do not add to Objectivism. They either clarify issues of Objectivism or add to the author's philosophy.

[TomL]

That's correct. Nobody can add anything new to Objectivism.  Peter Schwartz addressed this issue in the Q&A portion of his recent Ayn Rand Centenary speech. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. An Objectivist theory is "Objectivist" necessarily because she created it- not necessarily because it can be derived from the axiom that A is A. Extrapolating and clarifying is different than adding.

I never liked this approach to the definition of Objectivism, and I still don't. Peter (and everyone else who uses this definition) makes it sound very dogmatic -- "It is Objectivism because Ayn Rand said so". The fact that dogmatism is explicitly rejected by Objectivism doesn't help when you're explaining to non-Objectivists.

The real reason is that Objectivism is complete -- any "clarification" that anyone might do is already implicitly contained within Objectivist principles, including Peikoff's validation of induction. Ayn Rand stated that induction was valid and event went so far as to define its essence (see Lexicon). The fact that she did not peform the validation is irrelevant -- she already included it.

Further, any validation, reduction, integration or deduction which may further be done on Objectivism is already implicitly included in the very definition of Objectivism.

There are only 5 branches of philosophy, and no more. There is no possibility that any further branches will be discovered or identified, and Ayn Rand saw to it that Objectivism's stand in each branch was all-inclusive, even if it meant implicit inclusion (such as merely stating that induction was valid, but not saying why).

In fact, this inclusion is implicit in the statement "The correct epistemology for man to use is reason", since the concept "induction" is contained within "reason".

Edited February 26, 2005 by TomL

[Free Capitalist]

I know what you're trying to say; however, Objectivist ethics don't entirely subsume Aristotle's, and make the latter irrelevant. There is a significant overlap, particularly in the fundamentals, but Aristotle covers some things AR doesn't, and similarly she covers things he doesn't. It would be wrong to say that Ayn Rand covers everything important from Aristotle, and as I've said in other places, there are things I have found in Aristotle that I sorely wished Ayn Rand would talk about.

Hmm, it's been a while, don't remember the exact place. I think it might have been "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life". I very distinctly remember that AR said that what most inspired her in life was the sense of life she witnessed in American movies, while in Russia, which she no longer found when coming over here. Then she realized that she witnessed something powerful that was no longer there, so she was determined to be a transmission belt (I remember that exact phrase) of that something to the future, so that it wouldn't be lost. This doesn't really conflict with her statements at other times that her intention in life was to portray the ideal man. The two goals are entirely complementary, and the only reason they're expressed differently is because they were said in different contexts (her childhood motivation in one, her explanation of whether she's a writer or a philosopher in the other).

[redfarmer]

I never liked this approach to the definition of Objectivism, and I still don't.  Peter (and everyone else who uses this definition) makes it sound very dogmatic -- "It is Objectivism because Ayn Rand said so".  The fact that dogmatism is explicitly rejected by Objectivism doesn't help when you're explaining to non-Objectivists.

That's not what they're saying at all. If you think about it that way, then all of Objectivism should be a part of Aristotle's philosophy since it mainly built upon Aristotle's metaphysics, epistemology, and theics. Why is it not? Because Aristotle has been dead a very long time and he did not say nor think any of the philosophy of Objectivism.

Ayn Rand once said she only called her philosophy "Objectivism" because people were starting to call it "Randism" and she did not like that term. You would not dream of adding to Aristotle's philosophy. Why would you dream of adding to Ayn Rand's philosophy? That's the essensce of David Kelley's "open Objectivism" stance.

If you have not read it, you may want to read Leonard Peikoff's essay, Fact and Value It deals with the open and closed system Objectivism arguements.

[KantSpell4...]

I would have to say that Objectivism, as I understand it, quite clearly states that one must be an atheist in order to conform to some of its most basic elements.

As you no doubt know, Reason , based on objective facts is the only way for us to accurately perceive reality. Faith in the divine and mythical forces, based on so called proof in the form of largely contradicting stories and rumours that defy logic and hard fact is totally inconsistent with a reasoned outlook. Such things do not stand up to the light of true reaso.

Also, devotion to a deity or such, implies servitude to another, a supposed being that does not exist according to reason, ie something Objectivism requires you to hold as vitally important, does not have any actual reality.

Only an supposed existence , an illusion of being created by your hopes, fears and such. And Objectivism states that such emotions have no bearing on reality. Only actual facts have any bearing on reality, and religion contains little actual facts that support its assertions.

Therefore, not only does it imply servitude to another, but servitude to anothers ideas and beleifs, which conflicts the pursuit of rational self interest, or it does the way I see it.

One should not commit oneself to satisying rules set by those whom created the religion, and should allow the religion to define their actions, religion is not reason, and ideally only reason should affect ones actions.

All the above points, I feel give many reasons why religions and following them, contradict almost every concept defined within Objectivism. I might be wrong on some points as I am very new to this in one sense (in that I have only encountereed a simplified form of Obectivism in Terry Goodkinds Sword of Truth series), so please feel free to point out any errors you feel I may have made.

This is how I see it though...

[Free Capitalist]

JMegan, seeing as how Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy, in the most literal sense, you cannot expand on something she did not expand on. And you will see Objectivist intellectuals acknowledging this, i.e. Dr.Peikoff, where they say that though their new works are consistent with Objectivism, they aren't Objectivism themselves.

[TomL]

That's not what they're saying at all. If you think about it that way, then all of Objectivism should be a part of Aristotle's philosophy since it mainly built upon Aristotle's metaphysics, epistemology, and theics. Why is it not? Because Aristotle has been dead a very long time and he did not say nor think any of the philosophy of Objectivism.

You're missing or ignoring the whole point about Objectivism being complete.

To say that "philosophic system X is complete because its original author is dead" negates the entirety of the process by which man furthers his knowledge as a whole. Study vast periods of history in various fields, such as physics, and tell me this does not occur. Likewise, most certainly Aristotle had a great deal to do with Objectivism "from beyond the grave" -- because it was his philosophy at the base of the sense of life that Ayn Rand saw in the movies in the Russia. Objectivism was caused, just as every other existent, through a combination of factors that includes but is not limited to: the volitional consciousness of Ayn Rand.

Now, I am not saying that Objectivism is incomplete. I am at odds with the explanation that is offered for the correct statement that it is complete. The explanation that "it's Ayn Rand's and she's dead" is an incomplete, floating concept that does not integrate with what we know of the process of progressing man's knowledge over the course of history.

If you imagine, for a moment, some philosophic system under development by author X. He identifies the various branches of philosophy, and begins to build his premises. Before he is done, he gets hit by a truck, or he gets cancer, or he simply runs out of ability to abstract and cannot finish it himself, or makes an error and puts himself into a loop he can't get out of. Why is it then improper for someone else to pickup where he left off, continue his work to completion, or identify the error and resolve it?

It isn't, but none of those things are possible in the case of Ojbectivism, because Objectivism correctly identifies all branches of philosophy, and has a broad statement about each branch that implicitly subsumes any further refinements, facts, or premises discovered at any future date.

Ayn Rand's accomplishment in doing that is unique in history and deserved of much admiration, but it does not make her philosophy a dogma and it does not mean we should tell people that it is.

This also does not mean that a new psychology based on Objectivism, or a new way of studying physics based on Objectivism, cannot occur. It means that those things would not be part of Objectivism, because Objectivism is a philosophy, and those fields are not philosophical.

It is the job of philosophy to tell the sciences what to do -- it does not make the sciences a part of itself. Philosophy is limited to: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. That's it -- there's no more subsumed under the concept "philosophy".

Edited February 26, 2005 by TomL

[Free Capitalist]

Tom,

Ayn Rand's philosophy is hers solely for no other reason than because she wanted it to be so. It was her personal wish that no other people add anything to her philosophy that she didn't personally sanction. Historically, people HAVE tried to live off her philosophy by adding ideas that were wholly incompatible, and besmirched Objectivism, and therefore Ayn Rand herself. So to clear her name of any baggage, she had to clear Objectivism of any baggage, and said that unless she said something was Objectivism, it was not.

However, because of this something that is not in Objectivism is not necessary wrong. Dr. Peikoff's lectures on Induction are certainly not Objectivism, but a wonderful idea based on Objectivism. "Based on" is the best we can get right now, if we wish to honor Ayn Rand's desire. And the only reason some people don't respect her wish is because they want to live off her name and the reputation of her philosophy. There is no other reason.

[TomL]

Tom,

Ayn Rand's philosophy is hers solely for no other reason than because she wanted it to be so. It was her personal wish that no other people add anything to her philosophy that she didn't personally sanction. Historically, people HAVE tried to live off her philosophy by adding ideas that were wholly incompatible, and besmirched Objectivism, and therefore Ayn Rand herself. So to clear her name of any baggage, she had to clear Objectivism of any baggage, and said that unless she said something was Objectivism, it was not.

I understand all that, and I understand why she had to use that method. People are not accustomed to non-contradictory ideas, and she was dealing with a great deal of attacks on her ideas from all fronts.

But the fact remains that the ideas that poeple tried to "add" to Objectivism which were incompatible with it, were incompatible with it, based on reality and the process of reason, and not just because "Ayn Rand said so".

Because Objectivism is complete and correct, there is no need to stand on the dogma of "Ayn Rand said so" as the only means of defining it. It helped her in the beginning, especially before OPAR was written, when there was no complete statement on paper of "Objectivism: here it is in its entirety". Until that work was completed, Ayn Rand could only point to her mind as the reference material, rather than a book, and therein generates this confusion.

The problem for her was that people from the current culture could not and would not believe that any person could hold what would later be the entire contents of OPAR in their mind at one time, as an integrated whole -- and that is why she had to resort to that tactic. There is no need for it any longer.

Edited February 26, 2005 by TomL

[Free Capitalist]

Because Objectivism is complete and correct, there is no need to stand on the dogma of "Ayn Rand said so" as the only means of defining it.

I don't understand the connection between the premise and the conclusion. "Ayn Rand said so" is all I need in defining Objectivism. Why do you need anything else?

Oh and by the way, OPAR is not part of Objectivism, as Dr. Peikoff himself says in the Introduction.

[TomL]

I don't understand the connection between the premise and the conclusion. "Ayn Rand said so" is all I need in defining Objectivism. Why do you need anything else?

Oh and by the way, OPAR is not part of Objectivism, as Dr. Peikoff himself says in the Introduction.

Why do I need something else? Because my parents always told me "because I said so" when I was a child, and I properly never believed them. It is a statement of dogma, like the 10 commandments. "Thou shalt not X".

If Objectivism is only Objectivism because it is Ayn Rand's personal philosophy, then noone can be an Objectivist besides Ayn Rand. If Objectivism is Objectivism because it is a correct and complete philosophy, then we can properly call ourselves Objectivists. If the former and not the latter, we need to come up with a new name for ourselves besides "Objectivists".

So which is it? Personally, I don't care which way we make the distinction, but we need to be consistent. I care if you wish to define Objectivism with "because Ayn Rand said so", because implicit in that statement is attributing what most people in the culture would call the status of a "god" to Ayn Rand.

I agree that it happens to be true and that most people in the culture are incorrectly indentifying something there, but convincing them that we are a cult following a dead deity isn't going to help anyone. It will not do us personally or the future of our culture any good. We need to instead focus on the fact that Objectivism is complete and true, and later when people grasp it as possible, say that it is Ayn Rand's alone. You don't live in a vacuum, and you don't get to dismiss the culture's identification of us.

There is always a way to both tell the truth accurately and give a convincing to non-Objectivists at the same time, and in regards to the definition of Objectivism, we are doing a poor job.

[TomL]

Oh and by the way, OPAR is not part of Objectivism, as Dr. Peikoff himself says in the Introduction.

My point is that if Ayn Rand had written OPAR herself, whatever differences there would have been between that one and the one Dr. Peikoff wrote, she would then have been able to point to the book as reference instead of her own mind. She could then say, "If it isn't in the book, it isn't in Objectivism" instead of saying "If it isn't what I say, it isn't in Objectivism".

[Free Capitalist]

If Objectivism is only Objectivism because it is Ayn Rand's personal philosophy, then noone can be an Objectivist besides Ayn Rand.

That's right. Or people and writing she personally sanctioned.

I care if you wish to define Objectivism with "because Ayn Rand said so", because implicit in that statement is attributing what most people in the culture would call the status of a "god" to Ayn Rand.

That is wrong, and frankly malicious on so many levels. Objectivism is not godliness, and Ayn Rand is not a god(dess). She said ideas A, B and C, and asked those who respected her not to add ideas D through Z because Objectivism is what she said. Get it right: "Ayn Rand's philosophy" and "Objectivism" are exactly synonimous statements, by her own request. If you attempt to add new things, you attempt to attribute to her something she never said, and cannot vouch for. Also get this right: because of AR's own request, Objectivism does not hold the monopoly on truth. Dr. Peikoff's theory of Induction is not wrong merely because it's not part of Objectivism. His OPAR is not wrong mrely because it isn't part of Objectivism.

You seem to believe that Objectivism is godliness and holy truth, and therefore we must extend it to new truths. So, although you accuse everyone else of being dogmatic in treating Ayn Rand's philosophy, it is actually reverse, that only you are the one treating her so.

[Cole]

I never liked this approach to the definition of Objectivism, and I still don't.  Peter (and everyone else who uses this definition) makes it sound very dogmatic -- "It is Objectivism because Ayn Rand said so".  The fact that dogmatism is explicitly rejected by Objectivism doesn't help when you're explaining to non-Objectivists.

Make sure to not confuse "It is Objectivism because Ayn Rand said so" with "It is true because Ayn Rand said so." Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is true for reasons unrelated to the fact that she created it. It's true in itself. However, the word "Objectivism" means "the philosophy of Ayn Rand"- and it is also a true philosophy.

Edited February 27, 2005 by Cole

[Cole]

If Objectivism is only Objectivism because it is Ayn Rand's personal philosophy, then noone can be an Objectivist besides Ayn Rand.  If Objectivism is Objectivism because it is a correct and complete philosophy, then we can properly call ourselves Objectivists.  If the former and not the latter, we need to come up with a new name for ourselves besides "Objectivists". 

Somebody who's own philosophy aligns with the philosophy of Ayn Rand can accurately call himself an "Objectivist."

So which is it?  Personally, I don't care which way we make the distinction, but we need to be consistent.

I agree with the need for consistency. I'd argue that the proper definition of "Objectivism" is "the philosophy of Ayn Rand," because this is how Ayn Rand defined the word.

I care if you wish to define Objectivism with "because Ayn Rand said so", because implicit in that statement is attributing what most people in the culture would call the status of a "god" to Ayn Rand.

You're mixing the two definitions. Objectivism does not mean "everything that is true." The essential of the concept- its definition- is "the philosophy of Ayn Rand". The fact that it's true is a non-essential attribute. Saying "It's Objectivism because Ayn Rand created it" does not give Ayn Rand a godlike status unless you falsely define the word "Objectivism" (such as defining it as "truth").