Checking Premises . ORG Statements and My Position

Metaphysics and Epistemology
, , , , ,
41

As to Objectivists advocating using force against the irrational; no, certainly we do not endorse that idea, nor have we ever said so. We have never advocated shutting down schools that teach Kantianism, even though it is the most evil philosophy on earth.

Well, what are you waiting for?!! If Kantianism is the most evil philosophy on earth, and if it is as destructively influential as Rand and other Objectivists have said, then shouldn’t you declare war against it in the name of consistency?!!!

…but I think you are forgetting that we are at war with Islam, even though none of our officials want to put it that way.

Who is “we”? You and Peikoff? And when and how did you acquire the power and authority to declare war on behalf of the United States, and to do so against a religion? You say that I’m forgetting that we are at war with Islam? Um, no, YOU are apparently forgetting that, in reality, we are NOT at war with Islam!!!

So, yes, at least until the war is over…

There is no war against Islam outside of your imagination. Your wishing for the existence of such a war doesn’t make it true in reality.

…and Islam is pacified the way Christianity due to the influence of reason or counter-force, then I would not be against, say, a moratorium on building any new mosques, and if individual Muslims stood by the attacks on civilization around the world, they should be deported if they are immigrants and not American citizens.

That sounds like a very lame concept of “war.” Usually in wars, especially when the situation is so dire that one’s “metaphysical survival” is at stake, the idea is to KILL those against whom one has declared war, and not just to deny one’s enemies building permits in symbolic locations.

In a certain sense, since they did attack us directly, I think one could even make a case that Muslims who support those attacks are very close to treason, if they are American citizens.

What about the Muslims who did not support the attacks, or who you and Peikoff can’t prove supported the attacks? You really haven’t even tried to bring any objectively at all to thinking this issue through, have you? Your position is completely illogical.

J

42

…so they don’t see it as an eminent threat.

Heh. What’s an “eminent threat”? Perhaps the term that you’re groping for is “imminent threat”?

J

43

Heh. What’s an “eminent threat”? Perhaps the term that you’re groping for is “imminent threat”?

J

eminent: standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted

imminent: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one’s head <was in imminent danger of being run over>

I view Islam as an eminent threat, rather than imminent. Eminent has the potential to become imminent.

44

We are at war with Islam (or Islamic Totalitarianism, to use Yaron’s words) for the same reason we were at war against Nazism and Shintoism during World War II. That our officials have not stated so openly shows their moral cowardice and their refusal to acknowledge that holding onto certain ideas and acting on them is dangerous to the United States. In reality, we should be openly at war with Iran, because it is an Islamic Totalitarian Theocracy seeking to take over the world with force or terrorism, which they sponsor.

The irrational qua irrational (i.e. Kantianism) posses no direct physical threat to anyone, and hence we cannot take physical action against those who preach it openly. But when imams of Islam openly preach that the infidel ought to be slaughtered wherever they are and openly recruit terrorist acts against non-believers (suicide bombers in Israel), then yes, we can take specific physical action against them.

[added on edit] I will remind you that inciting a riot is illegal and ought to be when one is directly encouraging others to take up violent acts against those not using force against anyone. Similarly, if an imam is directly encouraging his flock to take up arms against those not using force against them for the sake of spreading Islam, then yes , this, too, is illegal.

45

I view Islam as an eminent threat, rather than imminent. Eminent has the potential to become imminent.

Thanks for the correction, yes, I meant “imminent.” Like Peikoff, I have no idea what they are going to have to do before people realize that the terrorists of 911 were acting logically consistently with their religion and the admonition to kill the infidel, and especially to attack the centers of modern civilization insofar as they permit people to speak out against Islam. Iran is seeking an atom bomb and has made it clear that they would use it against Israel or the United States – but I guess that is OK, since Islam means peace.

46

We are at war with Islam (or Islamic Totalitarianism, to use Yaron’s words)…

You do realize that those are not at all interchangeable, right? Not at all.

47

This position is quite mistaken, and does not take the ideology of Islam seriously enough.

Ah, finally someone who takes Islam seriously enough to study it!

– but I guess that is OK, since Islam means peace.

Um, y’know, actually it means “submission”. Maybe you were thinking of “salaam”. Sounds kind of like “shalom”.

48

Since the topic of this thread is objectivity, I’m not going to discuss Islam much further, as it is definitely a non-objective system of beliefs. Yes, Islam mean “submission” and that is actually one of the more evil aspects of it, quite aside from physical jihad against infidels and honor killings. Even if Islam did not aim for world domination through force (Caliphate), it would be evil since it is not based on a rational grasp of the world and is anti-man and anti-mind. The acceptance of Islam practiced fully leads a man to turn away from reason as an absolute, to submit his own rational judgement to that of the religious leader, to make him submit; which is evil.

By contrast, Objectivism understands that the mind is individual and that we are not to submit to either Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff or to any other man who claims to be an intellectual leader. One has to think things through on their own, judging the truth or falsity of an idea or a system of ideas by his own rational effort. And Dr.Peikoff has come out and stated that one does not have to agree with him on every topic, that neither he nor Ayn Rand sought blind followers. Yes, he is an authority on Objectivism – the one most knowledgeable about it and what Ayn Rand taught; but the individual must come to understand Objectivism by his own rational, logical, and fact-based effort.

1 Like
49

And besides, if you think you have the facts and reason on your side in a disagreement between you and Miss Rand, Peikoff, Binswanger, Yaron, or anyone else, then out with it and prove your case. However, if you are going to claim that Libertarianism (rights based on wants and desires), anarcho-capitalism (competition of governments, which Miss Rand specifically rejected), God (for which there is no evidence), rationalism as an ideal (logic not based on facts), Sophism (using pseudo-logic to justify anything you want to do), modern art ( no content smears on canvas), determinism (which rejects reason is volitional) or any other such thing is compatible with Objectivism, then you need to think it through again. Each of these is either a direct contradiction to what Miss Rand taught *is* Objectivism or does not logically (based on the facts) follow from anything she taught.

50

You do realize that those [islam and Islamic Totalitarianism] are not at all interchangeable, right? Not at all.

I think I would disagree with this. The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy – it was true for Christianity during the Dark Ages, and it is true for Islam, insofar as Mohammed was the true spokesperson for Allah, and his edicts must be followed to the letter. Plato was the first to realize this in his Republic and his Philosopher King, which would not lead to a republic at all, but some form of totalitarianistic “Formocracy.” Since such edicts require a special mind open to the real truth that is “out there” instead of being graspable via the senses and reason (objectivity), then the “true follower” would have to be given the reigns of the State to keep the lesser populous in check and following the right path. This was also true for Communism, for which the Soviet Union was the logical result of their metaphysics and their ethics (collectivism). The point is to develop the ability to logically project the practical results of holding non-objective ideas that cannot be confirmed via evidence and rationality.

51

You would have to look up DH’s Atloscon write up and her 05/31/2011 podcast to see what her argument was for eating brainless children. Effectively, she was stating that they didn’t have rights and therefore could be eaten, which is a rationalistic argument, basically putting such children in the same category as cattle and chickens. She even elaborated and said we could have them in grocery stores and her and the audience celebrated the fact that we could have baby baby-backed ribs! As I said in my previous post, it overlooks the fact that such deformed children are born of human parents, that it would be a great tragedy for the parents, and that they would not drop that context and take the position that, “Hey, Johnny didn’t quite come out right, so let’s have him for dinner!” Her position drops a great deal of context of expectant parents. So, it is not a matter of me disagreeing with her conclusion that labels that argument as rationalistic, it is the fact that she dropped a great deal of facts and context in her processing of considering what to do with brainless children. And by the way, I am not morally condemning her for making that mistake – I see it as an error of method – and she ought to realize she made an error, acknowledge it, correct her mistake, and take down that portion of that podcast.

This is exactly the kind of ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said that motivated me to terminate any and all conversation with Thomas M. on this matter … and any other. He consistently distorted my views – even after I repeatedly explained that to him. And he continues to do so. It’s deeply frustrating to me that he’s running around the internet making these kinds of false claims about me.

I suggest that anyone interested in my actual views and statements completely ignore his claims. Go listen to what I said for yourself; go read what I wrote for yourself.

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2012/01/on-some-recent-controversies.html

52

DH’s reply to accusations: I don’t claim to speak for Objectivism, nor do I regard my new philosophic work as part of Objectivism. (That’s part of the reason why my webcast is “Philosophy in Action,” not “Objectivism in Action.”) I regard my philosophic work as compatible with Objectivism. But it is my own work, and others can and ought to judge its compatibility for themselves.

If DH is not going to claim that she is a professional philosopher speaking for Objectivism and not considering herself to be a professional Objectivist philosopher specializing in ethics, then part of the controversy is already over.

As for me misrepresenting her podcast on brainless children, she even reiterates the point in her reply:

DH on brainless children: On hearing this view, any thinking person will immediately inquire about the logical implications of saying that anencephalic babies have no rights. Consider the extreme cases: Does that mean that they could be treated like any other animal, e.g. used for medical experiments, kept as a pet, or even eaten for food? (UGH!) The thought is repulsive, undoubtedly, but that’s not a reason to refuse to think about it. An honest person’s thinking is guided by facts, not emotions, and refusing to examine the logical implications of views under consideration is just evasion. (I was asked about this very issue in a discussion over dinner with some Objectivist friends prior to the webcast. It’s a natural question.)

So, she will have to explain how my views in the previous post misrepresent her views. And yes, please do listen to that podcast and how she and her audience celebrated the fact that we could have human baby baby-backed ribs.

1 Like
53

I think I would disagree with this. The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy – it was true for Christianity during the Dark Ages, and it is true for Islam, insofar as Mohammed was the true spokesperson for Allah, and his edicts must be followed to the letter.

That argument isn’t even internally consistent. You claim that the moral intrincisist elements in a religion with the features you describe will inevitably lead to religious totalitarianism, but there’s a reason you limit yourself to Christianity during the Dark Ages: because it would be historically illiterate to make the same claim about Christianity during the Reformation or the Renaissance. And yet, during those periods Christianity still held that God created the universe and handed down absolute moral law. So what changed? Those elements will always be there, and the emphasis on faith, revelation, and moral intrinsicism will always create a tendency towards the type of political system you’re talking about. However, this tendency does not make such a result inevitable, precisely because such a religion is internally inconsistent. Without internal consistency, interpretation and emphasis make all the difference in the world.

What changed during the Reformation and Renaissance was the interpretation and the emphasis of Christianity. The Bible didn’t change, but the beliefs and the teachings did. For Christianity, those who stressed religious and political freedom gained ground on those who stressed revelation and authoritarianism. Isolating one element of Christianity and arguing that the tendency it introduces into the ideology is inevitable constitutes a rationalistic argument that ignores historical fact, and the argument is still rationalistic when applied to Islam. For Islam, as well as for Christianity, there are those who stress religious and political freedom and liberal values as well as those who advocate for authoritarianism, and both sides have to ignore some element of their religion in order to hold a consistent position one way or another. Islamic totalitarianism is a subset of Islam, one which faces strong opposition from the rest. If you’re going to equate the two based on the fact that “The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy,” then there is also no difference between Christianity and Christian totalitarianism; they are one and the same movement. After all, Christianity has these elements too.

54

What changed during the Reformation and Renaissance was the interpretation and the emphasis of Christianity. The Bible didn’t change, but the beliefs and the teachings did. For Christianity, those who stressed religious and political freedom gained ground on those who stressed revelation and authoritarianism.

This is incorrect. It’s not that Christianity changed its focus, but rather that Aristotle via Thomas Aquinas changed the emphasis to reason rather than faith as a motivational factor in human existence. The Renaissance didn’t just happen because Christians changed their minds without cause or because they were tired of theocracy. Without Aquinas and a new emphasis on reason, it never would have happened. Similarly, those Muslims who place a great emphasis on following reason rather than faith do seek freedom, and even move over here and are good people, by and large. I even worked for a company that was run by a Muslim and several Muslims co-workers who were quite rational and good to know. But they were only this way because they accepted reason over faith to guide them in their daily lives. The imams who run Iran and other Islamic States are not this way at all. In fact, when Aristotle was on the rise in Islamic countries pre-Renaissance, it was the imams who squelched it, leaving Islamic lands in a perpetual state of theocratic rule to various degrees to this day.

[added on edit] Keep in mind that the Dark Ages extended for many hundreds of years and nearly a thousand years by some estimations (depending on where you begin and end the time period). The Christians had plenty of time to check their premises on their own but didn’t do so until the pagan influence came back on the rise after Aquinas.

55

This is incorrect. It’s not that Christianity changed its focus, but rather that Aristotle via Thomas Aquinas changed the emphasis to reason rather than faith as a motivational factor in human existence. The Renaissance didn’t just happen because Christians changed their minds without cause or because they were tired of theocracy. Without Aquinas and a new emphasis on reason, it never would have happened. Similarly, those Muslims who place a great emphasis on following reason rather than faith do seek freedom, and even move over here and are good people, by and large. I even worked for a company that was run by a Muslim and several Muslims co-workers who were quite rational and good to know. But they were only this way because they accepted reason over faith to guide them in their daily lives. The imams who run Iran and other Islamic States are not this way at all. In fact, when Aristotle was on the rise in Islamic countries pre-Renaissance, it was the imams who squelched it, leaving Islamic lands in a perpetual state of theocratic rule to various degrees to this day.

Of course the shift was driven through individuals within Christianity who placed reason over faith, including Aquinas. That’s my argument. Christianity is what Christians practice, and the religion as a whole shifted due to the positive influence of Christians like Aquinas. And there is a similar tension between different kinds of Muslims, as you yourself note from personal experience. Islam =/= Islamic Totalitarianism.

56

Diana Hsieh’s reply to critics:

http://blog.dianahsi…troversies.html

Another observation regarding this reply: It was very long and she must have taken some time to consider it and to write it up; and yet, she doesn’t make her case more clear for any of the controversial positions – she doesn’t use the objective method of going to the facts and reasoning from the facts to better explain why she is for property rights over the right to life in her NYC Mosque position. This would have been the time for her to do that. Likewise for transgenders. As to the eating brainless babies part, she does say it would be morally repulsive, but she doesn’t explain why. If she can show that she is right by an objective standard, that would be great, but she hasn’t done that.

57

Of course the shift was driven through individuals within Christianity who placed reason over faith, including Aquinas. That’s my argument. Christianity is what Christians practice, and the religion as a whole shifted due to the positive influence of Christians like Aquinas. And there is a similar tension between different kinds of Muslims, as you yourself note from personal experience. Islam =/= Islamic Totalitarianism.

Exactly. This contradiction was so clear in Thomas’s post that I figured there was little point pointing out the obvious to someone who could put forward such a blatant logical flaw.

58

We are at war with Islam (or Islamic Totalitarianism, to use Yaron’s words) for the same reason we were at war against Nazism and Shintoism during World War II.

Hahaha!

The U.S. was at war with the nations of Germany and Japan, not with Nazism and Shintoism. This is a fact of reality. You claim to be concerned with facts, no?

That our officials have not stated so openly shows their moral cowardice and their refusal to acknowledge that holding onto certain ideas and acting on them is dangerous to the United States.

So, your position is that officials should acknowledge the “eminent” danger to our “metaphysical survival” and do something daring and heroic to save all of our lives, such as prevent a single building from being constructed while allowing those who you’re claiming are threatening our “metaphysical survival” to walk freely amongst us? If we’re actually in “eminent” danger, shouldn’t you be advocating killing those who are threatening us, rather than just taking actions against symbolism?

The irrational qua irrational (i.e. Kantianism) posses no direct physical threat to anyone, and hence we cannot take physical action against those who preach it openly. But when imams of Islam openly preach that the infidel ought to be slaughtered wherever they are and openly recruit terrorist acts against non-believers (suicide bombers in Israel), then yes, we can take specific physical action against them.

And by “specific physical action,” you mean that we can prevent them from constructing a building in a symbolic location, but you’re hesitant to arrest, imprison or kill the people whom you’ve accused of threatening our lives and posing an “eminent” danger. Illogical. Irrational.

[added on edit] I will remind you that inciting a riot is illegal and ought to be when one is directly encouraging others to take up violent acts against those not using force against anyone. Similarly, if an imam is directly encouraging his flock to take up arms against those not using force against them for the sake of spreading Islam, then yes , this, too, is illegal.

If someone is doing something illegal, are you not aware that there are proper procedures to deal with it? Do you understand that there are laws and a system in place for judging and punishing criminal’s actions, and that you don’t just get to declare that someone is an “eminent” threat to you and invent a punishment off the top of your head (such as that they will not be imprisoned or in any other way hindered, except that they won’t be allowed to construct a building which you find offensive).

The acceptance of Islam practiced fully leads a man to turn away from reason as an absolute, to submit his own rational judgement to that of the religious leader, to make him submit; which is evil.

I think that you should be more concerned about what has caused you to turn away from reason. Your argument here is anything but reasonable.

By contrast, Objectivism understands that the mind is individual and that we are not to submit to either Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff or to any other man who claims to be an intellectual leader. One has to think things through on their own, judging the truth or falsity of an idea or a system of ideas by his own rational effort. And Dr.Peikoff has come out and stated that one does not have to agree with him on every topic, that neither he nor Ayn Rand sought blind followers.

But Peikoff has also taken the opposite position, which gives the impression that he is only giving lip service when saying that one does not have to agree with him on every topic. Many times he has made one assertion or another – such as how one must vote, etc. – and claimed that anyone who disagrees with him doesn’t understand and is not practicing Objectivism. And look at the McCaskey ordeal. McCaskey privately offered constructive criticism of a project and ideas that Peikoff backed. As a result, he was run off. That’s not how people are treated when blind followers are not being sought.

Yes, he is an authority on Objectivism – the one most knowledgeable about it and what Ayn Rand taught…

By what means have you determined that Peikoff is the most knowledgeable of Objectivism? Have you tested him versus others? Have you exposed him to the open criticisms of others? Or are you just making an arbitrary assertion that you merely wish to be true?

And besides, if you think you have the facts and reason on your side in a disagreement between you and Miss Rand, Peikoff, Binswanger, Yaron, or anyone else, then out with it and prove your case.

I’ve often done just that. I’d suggest that you look through OO’s section on aesthetics for examples of posts and threads in which I’ve proven my cases.

However, if you are going to claim that Libertarianism (rights based on wants and desires), anarcho-capitalism (competition of governments, which Miss Rand specifically rejected), God (for which there is no evidence), rationalism as an ideal (logic not based on facts), Sophism (using pseudo-logic to justify anything you want to do), modern art ( no content smears on canvas), determinism (which rejects reason is volitional) or any other such thing is compatible with Objectivism, then you need to think it through again. Each of these is either a direct contradiction to what Miss Rand taught *is* Objectivism or does not logically (based on the facts) follow from anything she taught.

Actually, when it came to art, Rand had contradictory views. For example, she defined art as a selective re-creation of reality, yet she accepted architecture as a valid art form despite explicitly saying that it “does not re-create reality;” she asserted that utilitarian objects could not be art, yet she accepted architecture as art despite stating that it was utilitarian; she asserted that art works must have objectively intelligible subjects and meanings, and that if they cease to present intelligible subjects and meanings then they cease to be art, yet she classified music as a valid art form despite stating that it does not present objectively intelligible subjects and meanings; and dance also does not qualify as an art form by her stated criteria, yet she accepted it as valid.

In short, what is or is not art to an Objectivist depends on which of Rand’s conflicting positions actually represent Objectivism. Must art be objectively intelligible and meaningful? If so, then “modern art” is not art, but neither is music, architecture, dance and perhaps many forms of realistic visual art, and maybe even quite a lot of poetry and literature. On the other hand, can certain things qualify as art because, like Rand, we want them to be in a special “class by themselves” which contradict our criteria, or because we believe that someday someone will discover an objective “conceptual vocabulary” for those art forms? If so then music, architecture and dance can qualify, but then so can “modern art.”

Also, among the things that I disagree with Rand about but don’t need to take your suggestion and “think it through again” is her claim that Kant was the “father” of the “modern art” that she disliked. The ideas contained in Kant’s Third Critique are not the basis of “modern art” as Rand falsely claimed. As I’ve said on other threads here at OO and elsewhere, it would be closer to the truth to say that Kant’s aesthetics are the basis of the Objectivist Esthetics, and more specifically of Rand’s aesthetic “sense of life.” His concept of the Sublime is the core of Rand’s aesthetic style.

J

59

Of course the shift was driven through individuals within Christianity who placed reason over faith, including Aquinas. That’s my argument. Christianity is what Christians practice, and the religion as a whole shifted due to the positive influence of Christians like Aquinas. And there is a similar tension between different kinds of Muslims, as you yourself note from personal experience. Islam =/= Islamic Totalitarianism.

Since you and SN think this is a contradiction, I have to voice my disagreement. Christianity is not what Christians *do* or practice, it is what they think and then act upon. A man is driven by his conscious mind – by the ideas he accepts – and is not classified by what he does as a primary.

The point I was making is that there is no evidence that Aquinas was ever an Augustinian Catholic – that he was an Augustinian and changed his mind upon reading Aristotle, coming up with his own philosophy. Likewise, his philosophy, Thomism, did not convert die-hard Augustinians, who thought Faith was the only way to truth. Similarly, we do not see modern day Kantian professors reading Ayn Rand and having an epiphany and shouting to the world that they have finally seen the truth and have become Objectivists. Philosophy simply doesn’t spread that way. Once someone has twisted their minds away from reality sufficiently so, there is no going back. One cannot develop the epistemology of Faith as a primary – or even rationalism as a primary (Augustine) – and then take to reason by simply changing one’s mind. So, it was not the fact that Christians suddenly changed their minds upon reading Aristotle or Aquinas – it was changed by those who had not yet made up their minds, and were still open to reason. Similarly, it is not the imams who will change their minds about Islam, come to accept either Aristotle, Thomism, or Objectivism, and live a more rationally based life. No, it will be those (mostly the young) who have not yet become totally Faith oriented who will become a better person and disavow some of the more violent aspects of Islam. However, this does not change the basic nature of Islam, just as Thomism did not change the basic nature of The Bible. By and large, the Muslims in America are like the Christians in America, they give lip service to their religion, but ignore it most of the week, following a modern life based upon reason.

60

I think it is time for a friendly reminder:

To Students of Objectivism

By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

02/14/2012

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is an integrated system of ideas covering the nature of reality (metaphysics), how the human conscious mind works (epistemology), what one ought to do (ethics), how men should interact with one another in a social context (politics), and the nature of art (aesthetics). Being a philosophy, it is an integrated whole making it one thing in reality – one system of thought. It takes a while to understand this if one has not studied philosophy, but rather has started off with her novels. No part of Objectivism can be torn apart from any other part of her philosophy, and still be a philosophy. If one tried to break it down piecemeal and accepting some but not all of her integrated ideas, then one is not grasping the whole, nor is one an Objectivist. Similarly, if one tries to substitute one aspect of her philosophy with another philosophy or just “common sense”, then one is not an Objectivist.

A great many people read Ayn Rand’s philosophy already having some ideas about the nature of reality and man’s place in it, and hence argue with the points of Objectivism; which is fine, since there is a learning curve, and Objectivism is not a philosophy of commandments handed down from Ayn Rand. However, there are those who do believe that anything goes, so long as they agree with the axioms (existence, identity, and consciousness), and go astray from the philosophy with their own ideas not compatible with Objectivism due to errors of thought.

The primary methodology of Objectivism is objectivity – of remaining logically consistent with the facts of reality, rather than going by one’s emotions or being consistent idea to idea or following mere convention of word usages. It is this going by the facts in a non-contradictory manner (logic) that sets Objectivism apart from other philosophies. And this methodology is celebrated among Objectivists even over disagreements, so long as the disagreements are presented in a logical manner. Though it takes a while to learn how to do this method, Objectivism does encourage rational independence; so long as one is not independent of the facts of reality nor the facts about what Objectivism *is* as presented by Ayn Rand while calling oneself an Objectivist.

If you think you have the facts and reason on your side in a disagreement between you and Miss Rand, Dr. Peikoff, Harry Binswanger, Yaron Brook, or anyone else – then out with it and prove your case. However, if you are going to claim that Libertarianism (rights based on wants and desires), anarcho-capitalism (competition of governments, which Miss Rand specifically rejected), God (for which there is no evidence), rationalism as an ideal (logic not based on facts), Sophism (using pseudo-logic to justify anything you want to do), modern art ( no content smears on canvas), determinism (which rejects reason is volitional) or any other such thing is compatible with Objectivism, then you need to think it through again. Each of these is either a direct contradiction to what Miss Rand taught *is* Objectivism or does not logically (based on the facts) follow from anything she taught. If you want to hold onto such ideas, you are free to do so, but calling yourself an Objectivist while doing so is to be involved in a contradiction; which should be rejected, one way or the other.

Kant and Aesthetics