Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist Factions

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

What are the different Objectivist factions? What are their differences?

It has always been my opinion that there will ALWAYS be political and philosophical debate, meaning that even if the entire world accepted Objectivism there would still be debate on the specifics, but why must we argue on the specifics, now?

I can't help but blame forums like these. I understand that we Objectivists need a place to talk, and sharpen our philosophical ideals, but there is a lot more work do be done out in the world, with all the Communists and Socialists.

Unless there is a glaring difference between the factions, I don't understand how Objectivists wouldn't unite against the vastly more evils philosophies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the different Objectivist factions? What are their differences?

It has always been my opinion that there will ALWAYS be political and philosophical debate, meaning that even if the entire world accepted Objectivism there would still be debate on the specifics, but why must we argue on the specifics, now?

I can't help but blame forums like these. I understand that we Objectivists need a place to talk, and sharpen our philosophical ideals, but there is a lot more work do be done out in the world, with all the Communists and Socialists.

Unless there is a glaring difference between the factions, I don't understand how Objectivists wouldn't unite against the vastly more evils philosophies.

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It is a "closed system," which means that only people who agree with the fundamental philosophic positions that Ayn Rand espoused should legitimately be considered "Objectivists." For example, people who hold that Ayn Rand was correct on some points, but who nonetheless subscribe to the idea of a mind-body dichotomy, or promote some form of political statism, or some other idea fundamentally opposed to what Ayn Rand believed, are not Objectivists, although there are some who claim to be (every kind of philosophy faces that as a challenge as it gains in popularity, even ones opposite from Objectivism-- for example, Karl Marx made a famous statement once, referring to a particular group who were claiming to be proponents of his theories, "If that's what Marxism is, then I'm not a Marxist!").

So there are several factions claiming to be Objectivists, which are not in fact Objectivist, because they do not agree with Ayn Rand on fundamental points, which they often admit in the form of claiming to subscribe to Objectivism as an "open system," which translates to saying, basically, "it can mean whatever you want it to mean." Followers of David Kelly, such as those at The Atlas Society, are one example of this (in terms of the example I gave above, Kelly is not a statist as far as I can tell, but does subscribe to a variation on the mind-body dichotomy, as well as other points which diverge from Ayn Rand's philosophy, and have been described in other threads on Kelly, The Atlas Society, and The Objectivist Center, as well as in Diana Hsieh's blog, NoodleFood (that's just the main page, you'll have to do a search).

There are often disagreements between actual Objectivists, however. But they do not typically result in "factions" being formed (at least, as far as I'm aware). For example, Leonard Peikoff was adamantly against Bush in the last election-- he was pushing for people to vote for Kerry. He thought Bush was too big of a threat, because of the rise of religious fundamentalism in America, and for other reasons. And a lot of Objectivists agreed with him on that. But Harry Binswanger supported Bush, on the grounds that terrorism in the Middle East is too big of a threat to mess around with, and he didn't think Kerry would do enough about it. And a lot of Objectivists agreed with him.

The issue of who should be President of the United States is no small concern. But Peikoff and Binswanger have a mutual respect for each other-- they've been friends and colleagues for years and they share the fundamental premises that make them both Objectivists. So many Objectivists engaged in debates over this issue-- sometimes heated ones, but nobody formed any "factions" over it.

I'm aware of some diverse opinions on certain points held by Objectivists, but I'm not aware of any multiple factions within Objectivism. Does that help answer your question at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless there is a glaring difference between the factions, I don't understand how Objectivists wouldn't unite against the vastly more evils philosophies.
In my opinion, Communism is no threat anymore. China is assimilating ideas of ownership and capitalism, the Soviet Union is last week's news, and the handful of remaining commie dictatorships are ineffective and on their last legs. So there's a point of disagreement, which arises not from a philosophical difference but from knowledge context. I personally think the kind of creeping socialism that we're seeing in the US plus the rise of the religious right are the greatest threats to our freedom, and I think that of the two, the greatest danger is the religious right.

The important thing to remember is that Objectivism isn't a political party, it is a philosophy. We don't have a short-term goal like "defeat socialism" as our guiding purpose. The pieces of the philosophy are integrated, in the sense that you can't just pick what you like and ignore what you don't like, because the ethical system is not coherent without the epistemology. It is more important to work out the fine-grained details and make objective thinking be part of the culture, than it is to band together to defeat Swedish socialism.

In a nutshell, some "Objectivists" simply want to be liked, so they go for a kinder, gentler "everybody is right" philosophy that is perhaps more palatable to those raised in contemporary hive-think, Kantian society. At some point, these guys will have to address the hard questions (they can't go on in their pattern of evasion forever.... or can they?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that Objectivism is not a political party, but a "closed" philosophy. If there are minor disagreements in the philosophy, at what point do you call someone an Objectivist. If someone believes that existence exists, and that A is A, and that man is an end in himself, does that make him an Objectivist? Or does he need to accept more?

I was just wondering how different the other factions are? I am assuming, correct me if I am wrong, this forum accepts the "Ayn Rand Institute" as the intellectual heir of Objectivism.

If you take a step back are the differences really that big, and if so, what are these differences (not rhetorical, I am truly ignorant on this subject)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on who you disagree with. For example, if you think that Peikoff's account of certainty is wrong, that would be possible, since it isn't explicitly part of Rand's articulated epistemological position. This is not to suggest that I have any idea what alternative to Peikoff's theory is possible and would be consistent with Rand's philosophical writing, but I am not certain (P sense) that his is the only Objectivist-consistent view of certainty. OTOH, you cannot, for example, hold that rendering moral judgment is a vice, sine Rand explicitly says otherwise ("How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society"). Tolerationism is just plain and simple a repudiation of an aspect of Objectivism. Same with "Anarcho-Objectivism".

I don't think you can make many true, general statements about what this forum considers. You can see the policy statements about forum usage, and read David Veksler's posts to see what he believes. Overall, I think that most if not all active actually Objectivist participants here would support ARI and would not support TOC. My personal opinion is that the writings of ARI associates is the best representation of Objectivism, although here and there I have disagreed with something that someone says. However, the idea of an "intellectual heir" doesn't sit at all well with me. Ideas cannot be property and cannot be inherited. The available evidence indicates that Rand considered Peikoff to accurately understand and apply Objectivism. But if Peikoff were to suddenly have a brain attack and start spouting altruism and tolerationism, that would not redefine the nature of Objectivism.

I have not undertaken a detailed study of the differences between Kelleyites and Objectivists, so I can't go into great detail. Diana Hsieh could, of course. I used to subscribe to OWL, a Kelleyite list, and the posts there generally struck me as being a bit on the postmodernist, over-libertarian side. (This may seem like a trivial snipe, but it seems to me that Kelley's primary interest is "liberty", suggesting that "being free" is the fundamental principle behind Objectivism -- which it is not). My opinion of this article by Kelley is that it has no content. Most of all, I just have never found any of their writings to be relevant or engaging enough to even bother with, so I really don't know

much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that Objectivism is not a political party, but a "closed" philosophy. If there are minor disagreements in the philosophy, at what point do you call someone an Objectivist. If someone believes that existence exists, and that A is A, and that man is an end in himself, does that make him an Objectivist? Or does he need to accept more?

I was just wondering how different the other factions are? I am assuming, correct me if I am wrong, this forum accepts the "Ayn Rand Institute" as the intellectual heir of Objectivism.

If you take a step back are the differences really that big, and if so, what are these differences (not rhetorical, I am truly ignorant on this subject)?

Objectivism is what Ayn Rand defined it as. She said that. Take the writings of Rand as Objectivism. If one wants to say that Rand was right about a lot of stuff, but was wrong about a few things, then they that's not Objectivism. They might be someone with whom I share a whole bunch of views, and they might even be someone I respect on some level. If we can leave it at that, then great. However, when that someone wants to assert that this "98% of Objectivism, plus corrections" to Rand is Objectivism, then that is the problem.

Look at this way. Someone who takes 98% of Objectivism I can work with (if it's the right 98%). But someone who takes 98% of Objectivism but still has the need to be called an Objectivist and then tries to promulgate that as Objecitivsm is co-opting the philosophy. That is specifically destructive to the philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a point of note and clarification. There are many Objectivists at ARI and elsewhere working on extending the work done by Rand. They are always careful to include the disclaimers that their work is NOT part of the formal Objectivist corpus. That is all I would ask of anyone, and that is intellectually honest.

Certainly if Objectivism is true, and the new work is true, it will not overturn what Rand was certain of, just contextualize it. Still, it should not be considered Objectivism.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideas cannot be property and cannot be inherited.

Do you mean this to imply that there can be no intellectual property?

If there are minor disagreements in the philosophy, at what point do you call someone an Objectivist.

If you do a search, there are some interesting threads on this topic. I think there's one called "At what point should someone be considered an Objectivist," or something very close to that. I think the gist of it is that someone is an Objectivist when, in the context of his knowledge, he honestly agrees with all of the fundamental philosophic views presented by Ayn Rand, as he understands them, and is working to integrate those ideas into the wider context of his life. That doesn't mean he has to agree with Ayn Rand on every statement she ever made (such as her preference of the symphonic compositions of Rachmaninoff over those of Beethoven, or her views on a woman President), but only those issues which she thought were essential to her philosophy (such as the primacy of existence, the idea of man as a heroic being with reason as his only absolute and productive achievement as his noblest activity, laissez-fair capitalism as the only moral form of government ever conceived, etc). But the moment that he realizes he no longer agrees with her on a fundamental philosophic principle (for instance, if he comes to the conclusion that consciousness might sometimes or always have primacy over existence, or that altruism and duty are really the best code of morality and that egoism is evil or mistaken) then it is dishonest for him to continue to call himself an Objectivist. It's pointless to say that he wasn't a "real" Objectivist up to that point-- maybe he was, in his context of knowledge, but it's false and misleading to describe him as an Objectivist after he rejects some fundamental aspect of Objectivism. It's just not an accurate description anymore. It's like the faction of "Christians" in the latter part of the 20th century who declared they didn't believe in God-- it's just absurd. It's dishonest. It's confusing. The least they can do is make up another name to describe their ideas.

I know all that might sound kind of tentative, like I'm avoiding the issue of what the competing factions of "Objectivists" really believe, and how it differs from what I believe. But to be honest, I don't know of any uniting philosophical positions that the anti-ARI groups hold-- besides 1) the fact that they disagree with some fundamental point or points of Ayn Rand (ie, the "open system"), 2) An apparent personal dislike for Ayn Rand and/or Leonard Peikoff in a way that's highly personal, often making the most heinous and unverifiable remarks about their personal psychologies and/or business practices, and/or 3) A desire to "get along" with people who hold ideas that are explicitly contrary to Objectivism and to make public appearances at their functions (Libertarians and Nazis are two groups I remember specifically mentioned by David Kelly in his articles), in order to allegedly achieve pragmatic goals, and "maybe even learn something" from them. I believe that all three of these elements are present in David Kelley's The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, and (somewhat) in Nathaniel Branden's "The Benefits and Hazards of Objectivism" and Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand, if you want some references for the other side's point of view, so to speak.

Of course, it's up to you to judge whether you think these differences are significant or not. I know I didn't come to my conclusions overnight. Diana Hsieh is an especially good reference for learning about David Kelly, the Brandens, and The Objectivist Center specifically, because she used to be affiliated with them, but eventually broke her ties with them and became more involved with circles who are more supportive of ARI.

I agree with David (Odden) that not everything said by every affiliate of ARI is necessarily true-- David Kelly was once affiliated with ARI, and he said some (IMO) kooky things even then. Every once in a while someone associated with ARI will come out with an article or Op Ed that I consider to be pretty poor quality in terms of scholarship and style. But there are some precious gems as well-- frequent ones, that I would never expect to be published by anyone else in the world. And I think they are doing more to promote, defend, and develop Objectivism than anyone else. But these are just some of my opinions and observations-- I don't know if it will end up saving you any time, because there is a lot of information to wade through. If you want to hear all the exact points of difference that the Kellyists etc raise with Objectivism, it's better to hear it from their mouths, because they are a lot more prolific about it than the ARI crowd. They're largely ignored by ARI, because, I think you might find.. their actual positions, as much as they have any, are pretty vacuous. They are more "anti-Rand" or "anti-ARI" than they are FOR anything.. So that's another reason we could never work with them to achieve anything good. (I hope I'm saying something helpful.. I remember how confusing this stuff was to me when I was first interested in Objectivism).

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It is a "closed system," which means that only people who agree with the fundamental philosophic positions that Ayn Rand espoused should legitimately be considered "Objectivists."

Suppose I were to argue that some claim that Ayn Rand made was inconsistent with her fundamentals. If you agreed with me, would you say that Rand was wrong about what Objectivism was and that I am right about what it is, or that I had shown that Objectivism was flawed?

tobyk100: There are two factions: ARI and TOC. There may be other groups that call themselves "factions" because they disagree with both, but I have never heard of them. One anti-ARI website (http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/index.html) claimed that one major reason for the split was over whether or not there exist "Inherently dishonest ideas." According to the site, an inherently dishonest idea is one which does not explicitly claim to be against reason or reality, but which nonetheless is against reason and reality and which one cannot believe in without being against reason and reality. More succinctly, and inherently dishonest idea is one which an individual cannot honestly err in believing. For example, on some accounts one cannot mistakenly believe that socialism is moral, because socialism is an inherently dishonest idea, and therefore a promulgator of socialism is necessarily an evader and a knowing champion of the products of evasion. Peikoff (of ARI) believes that some ideas (including socialism) are inherently dishonest, and Kelley (of TOC) does not believe that any ideas are inherently dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peikoff (of ARI) believes that some ideas (including socialism) are inherently dishonest, and Kelley (of TOC) does not believe that any ideas are inherently dishonest.
I'm not an expert on this, and I'm sure someone else will chime in; however, my understanding of the topic would say that you've got it wrong. I do not think Peikoff would say that all the young kids who've accepted environmentalism and socialism as being good ideas are inherently dishonest. One does not judge dishonesty by looking at the idea alone, but at the idea and the person who holds it. Then one asks if that person can hold that idea honestly. You could be wrong in such judgement, of course, but that's the risk you take with any judgement. That should not stop you from judging; you should simply be aware of the certainity or uncertainity behind your judgements and the use that to guide any actions you take based on that judgement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are two relevant paragraphs and part of a third from Fact and Value.

  • Now we must note that falsehood does not necessarily imply vice; honest errors of knowledge are possible. But such errors are not nearly so common as some people wish to think, especially in the field of philosophy. In our century, there have been countless mass movements dedicated to inherently dishonest ideas—e.g., Nazism, Communism, non-objective art, non-Aristotelian logic, egalitarianism, nihilism, the pragmatist cult of compromise, the Shirley MacLaine types, who "channel" with ghosts and recount their previous lives; etc. In all such cases, the ideas are not merely false; in one form or another, they represent an explicit rebellion against reason and reality (and, therefore, against man and values). If the conscientious attempt to perceive reality by the use of one's mind is the essence of honesty, no such rebellion can qualify as "honest."

  • The originators, leaders and intellectual spokesmen of all such movements are necessarily evaders on a major scale; they are not merely mistaken, but are crusading irrationalists. The mass base of such movements are not evaders of the same kind; but most of the followers are dishonest in their own passive way. They are unthinking, intellectually irresponsible ballast, unconcerned with logic or truth. They go along with corrupt trend-setters because their neighbors demand it, and/or because a given notion satisfies some out-of-context desire they happen to feel. People of this kind are not the helplessly ignorant, but the willfully self-deluded.

  • EVEN IN REGARD to inherently dishonest movements, let me now add, a marginal third category of adherent is possible: the relatively small number who struggle conscientiously, but simply cannot grasp the issues and the monumental corruption involved. These are the handful who become Communists, "channelers," etc. through a truly honest error of knowledge. Leaving aside the retarded and the illiterate, who are effectively helpless in such matters, this third group consists almost exclusively of the very young—and precisely for this reason, these youngsters get out of such movements fast, on their own, without needing lectures from others; they get out as they reach maturity.

Here he explicitly recognises inherently dishonest ideas, but allows somewhat less harsh evaluation of the holders of such ideas, namely exactly those very young children who are immature, and are destined to reject these ideas when they grow up. Put this in contrast to the example of an intellectually honect person attributed to Kelley (I haven't seen this in Kelley's writing so I can't vouch for it -- it is widely enough cited without refutation that I have no reason to doubt its veracity), namely the academic Marxist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose I were to argue that some claim that Ayn Rand made was inconsistent with her fundamentals. If you agreed with me, would you say that Rand was wrong about what Objectivism was and that I am right about what it is, or that I had shown that Objectivism was flawed?

If I agreed, and if the claim made by Ayn Rand was not itself a statement of a fundamental, then I would say that Miss Rand was wrong about that claim, but not about what Objectivism was (because Objectivism was/is the fundamentals of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and not every claim ever made by Ayn Rand).

If I agreed, and if the claim made by Ayn Rand was a statement of a fundamental, then I would concede that you've shown Objectivism to be flawed. (But, of course, that hypothetical is impossible, because I am familiar with her fundamentals, and know that they are consistent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
Kelley (of TOC) does not believe that any ideas are inherently dishonest.

I am somewhat new to objectivism, Ihave been reading Ayn Rand's writing since my freshman year in highschool, (I am currrently a junior in highschool), and I recently decided I wanted to delve into more of the specifics of the philosphy, so correct me if I make some stupid comments, but if kelly believes that there are no inherently dishonest ideas, that sounds to me that he is impying the absence of the concrete, thus in the denial of reason, which is entirely against the Objectivist beliefs.

Thanks MSK150

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am somewhat new to objectivism, Ihave been reading Ayn Rand's writing since my freshman year in highschool, (I am currrently a junior in highschool), and I recently decided I wanted to delve into more of the specifics of the philosphy, so correct me if I make some stupid comments, but if kelly believes that there are no inherently dishonest ideas, that sounds to me that he is impying the absence of the concrete, thus in the denial of reason, which is entirely against the Objectivist beliefs.

Thanks MSK150

I think it's probably true that Kelly doesn't believe in any inherently dishonest ideas. But I think what that means, for him, is that the fact a person holds a particular idea is not enough information to determine *why* he holds the idea, and whether, if it is a false idea, it is the result of an error of knowledge (which is morally excusable) or an act of evasion (which is not). He apparently extends this from isolated ideas to sophisticated systems of ideas, but I'm not sure if he puts some qualifications on it at some point, or if so at what point.

I'm not sure if this is a clear and explicit example of "implying the absence of the concrete," if I'm understanding what you meant by that, because I do think Kelly believes in personal responsibility on some level, and I do think it's his position that acts of evasion, when there is (what he considers to be) sufficient evidence to show that there have been acts of evasion, are immoral. He does seem to drive a wedge between thought and action, or between body and mind, that is contrary to Ayn Rand's views (maybe that's what you meant by "absence of the concrete"--the presence of the abstract/mind without a concrete/physical counterpart. If so, I do think that's what he's doing, and I do think it's in opposition to Objectivism).

(It's been a while since I've thought about this or read anything by David Kelly, so I just wanted to put that as a disclaimer to this comment in case I've unintentionally misrepresented the issue at all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It is a "closed system," which means that only people who agree with the fundamental philosophic positions that Ayn Rand espoused should legitimately be considered "Objectivists."

Not only agree, but practice and advocate Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Only then could one legitimately be considered an Objectivist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think the question of what is Objectivism and what is Rand's evaluation of particular empirical matters is an important one.

Obviously you can't advocate the welfare state and support Objectivism, but what about other things? For example, I disagree with the following opinions of Rand's...

1) there are fixed man v. woman gender identities and people who want to depart from normative gender roles are intellectually dishonest

2) homosexuality is degenerate

3) economics sanctions are an effecive policy for fighting totalitarianism

4) James Joyce sucked

Many of these issues have their own threads, and I'm certainly not interested in debating the particulars of my more-or-less heretical opinions here.

I was interested if anyone had criteria for drawing the line between "Objectivism" and "Randism"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, I disagree with the following opinions of Rand's...

1) there are fixed man v. woman gender identities and people who want to depart from normative gender roles are intellectually dishonest

2) homosexuality is degenerate

3) economics sanctions are an effecive policy for fighting totalitarianism

4) James Joyce sucked

I challenge you to show that 1, 2 and 4 were philosophical positions that Rand took. I challenge you to show that 3 was a position of any kind that Rand took, and that your disgreement on that point is correct. Money meets mouth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I was thinking of her essay "About a Woman President."

2. OK she said "psychological immorality" rather than "degenerate"

Here's a quote from CapitalismForever on the Homosexuality thread

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ic=94&st=40

Compare this with the following unequivocal statement from Ayn Rand during a Q&A in 1971:

QUOTE

Q: This questioner says she read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is so, why?

A: Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting.

(from http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.5)

3. I remember reading that she thought economic sanctions were good against communist countries in the ARL. I don't have it in front of me right now. Can anyone help me out with a quote?

4. Once again, I don't have The Art of Fiction in front of me and have to work for memory.

As I said, I wanted to focus in this thread on the question of the line between views intrinsic to Objectivism versus those one could legitimately disagree with Rand on be considered an Objectivist. If we debated the specifics of 1-4 here, this thread would explode out of control.

If you want to debate about those issues, there are already huge threads on 1 and 2. As for 3, I'll debate you on sanctions later if you really want to. And for four, I've written about it here...

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=8877

Once again,if you want to debate about those issues or whether Rand really said what I thought she said, then please go to relevant threads or start new ones. I wanted to focus on a broader meta-question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again,if you want to debate about those issues or whether Rand really said what I thought she said, then please go to relevant threads or start new ones. I wanted to focus on a broader meta-question.
Okay, then setting aside your particular mistakes in regards to those issues, the distinction centers around distinguishing Rand's philosophical ideas, versus her words taken out of context. To distinguish the two, you have to present the full context. If she offers a personal opinion about the state of the world, that's not a philosophical position. If she offers a conclusion about fact based on her knowledge at the time and her philosophy, that's not her philosophy iff her knowledge was incomplete. Thus her homosexuality position was based on, yes, you will love this, accepting the word of credible scientists at the time. Those scientists were ignorant in various ways, so because she was not a scientist or a psychologist / psychiatrist, she was not in a position to reject their conclusions as unjustified and irrational.

However, if you plan to accuse Rand of concrete errors, you ought to start by proving that she made the claim in question. I have a similar point to make about global warming and science in general, but I think I've made the point in a number of forms already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honsestly, I found your answer less than illuminating. I asked about what should be considered "intrinsic" to Objectivism, and you said that we should bracket thoughts that are "a personal opinion about the state of the world." I was wondering where to draw that line. If anyone had a concrete answer I'd be thrilled. Maybe it's like pornography, "we know it when we see it." As you might of figured out by now, I like raising provocative questions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kothor,

Those aspects of Mrs. Rand's beliefs are not generally considered to be part of Objectivism. Psychology is a separate field from philosophy. Branden's The Psychology of Self-Esteem, for instance, is not considered part of Objectivism even though Rand edited and presumably agreed with most of it. Objectivism refers specifically to Ayn Rand's philosophy, not her beliefs in psychology, physics, or other subjects. By the same token, Ayn Rand's personal preferences (like her taste in movies or music) are not considered part of Objectivism proper.

Also, Mrs. Rand's applications of her philosophy to current events and other topics are not considered to be part of Objectivism. For instance, Mrs. Rand believed that the USSR was evil and that Libertarians were morally corrupt. This does not imply that anti-USSRism or anti-Libertarianism are part of Objectivism. Objectivist principles may imply these moral judgments, even necessitate them, but these are applications of the philosophy, not the philosophy itself. Her personal moral judgment of homosexuality falls into this category.

That said, if I did believe that Rand's views on homosexuality were part of Objectivism, then I would not consider myself fully an Objectivist because I would not agree with her entire philosophy. I would say "I agree with most of it, except this particular aspect." And there's nothing wrong with saying that, just as there's nothing wrong with paying homage to Aristotle's genius without considering oneself to be fully an Aristotilian. Keep in mind that the statement, "Idea X is not Objectivism" is not necessarily a criticism of Idea X. Objectivism means something very specific (the philosophy of Ayn Rand), and it does not subsume the set of all true ideas.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honsestly, I found your answer less than illuminating.
Well, perhaps it's because this is a matter that's written about enough that I don't feel inspired to do more than give a very general answer. If you can't distinguish between a general philosophical position as opposed to one based on her personal knowledge, perhaps this indicates that you ought to re-read ITOE to get the science / philosophy distinction. I do understand, though, that you like to be annoying. Or some similar adjective, I forget exactly what you said. Philosophy isn't computer programming, and that's the fault of computer programming for being incapable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading people's responses, I realized it might be helpful to better artiuclate what was motivating my concerns. The point of Rand's critique of the moral/practical and theory/practice dichotomies was that philsophical assumptions had very direct "practical" effects. To take the example of psychology, she thought that bad psychology (i.e., self-loathing) was a direct effect of moral principles.

To take another approach, Peikoff critiques the analytic-synthetic dichotomy on the grounds that one can't make distinctions between necessary and contingent truths. When people describe certain views of Rand or other Objectivists as time-bound, contingent, "current-eventy," they are creating a dichomoty similar to the ASD. Is there a distinction between "analytic" (necessary) v. "synthetic" (contingent) views of Objectivism? To be clear, I'm using the ASD as an ANALOGY--i'm not accusing anyone of epistemological errors here. I just find some of people's overly-pat response goes against the integrating thrust that IS intrinsic to Objectivism.

And yes asking provocative questions involves provoking. Some people find it annoying, but as Kurt Kobain Cobain would say, "my will is good..."

I also enjoy keeping questions on this forum open as long as possible rather than closing them down by being satisfied with the first response that comes to mind... another psycological quirk that DavidOdden perhaps finds annoying.

Edited by Korthor
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...