Little Owl, you seem sincere in this and while I’m not very familiar with “critical theory” the observations you’ve mentioned of Objectivist principles are entirely accurate.
But you’re missing the forest for the trees.
If you took the blueprints for two different buildings, such as a skyscraper and a cathedral, retained the similarities and blended the differences between them, of what value would the result be? Consider specifically the mechanical differences; how high can bricks and mortar be stacked?
If you’re familiar with the practice of remixing an old song into a new one, consider the difference between a great remix and a trite one- I promise that you’ll see the method I’m referring to.
Integrating any pair of things isn’t simply a matter of finding their similarities and differences; we also have to understand the reasons for such differences. Anything less will necessarily be arbitrary.
So in order to actually integrate Objectivism with “critical theory” we must not only find their differences but also the reasons for them. So what’s the root difference? At first glance it may seem political but it isn’t; all of their political differences stem from the moral.
Ultimately the question to ask is what Marxism considers proper for an isolated individual. . .
When Ilya stated that an emotion ‘to be experienced must be expressed socially,’ it was a reference to something very important.
It was the basis of the reasoning behind this very thread and the precise root of Marxism’s conflict with Objectivism. If you come to understand nothing except that, you’ll understand everything that would be necessary to ‘integrate’ the two, as well as the source of many Objectivists’ contempt for the suggestion.
If it is necessary to restate my case, I will maintain that Objectivism would cease to be Objectivism if the axiomatic tenets of Objectivism were somehow “integrated” with Marxism, or any belief that includes the demise of private ownership of property. So far, none of the “pro-integrationist” have even come close to making a compelling argument.
To say that Marxism and Objectivism are incompatible is not necessarily true, given Marxism’s fluid nature. It may—may—be possible for the former to be revised to the point that it is compatible with the latter.
Little Owl, I’m glad you have such an interest in Objectivism, in that you’ve read the non-fiction, but you have yet to make your case as to the compatibility of these diametrically opposing philosophies.
Harrison, I perceive your position as similar to mine. Regarding “emotions expressed socially,” those “emotions” are quite often the maudlin expressions of the sort we witness all together too much in the media. Maybe I’m not exactly on the page, but I thought it worth commenting on the fallacy of popular trends such as public display of emotions. Is this what you were referring to?
Who is talking about the demise of property rights? Whynot respond to what writers on Rand-Marx comparisons have actually written and why or why not you find it compelling instead of respond to a phantom Marxist heresy of objectivist pureness?
This is exactly how ARI dismissed Prof Sciabarra’s great biography of Rand, oh Rand a dialectical thinker that’s just blasphemy! Instead if just taking it at face value and responding to points raised…
In that general area, Repairman, but something very specific and fundamental.
When Occupy Wall Street protesters declare “we are the 99%” we both know that’s a total nonessential. And when people communicate something using arbitrary little nonessentials, you know that it’s an anticonceptual code of some sort.
What do you suppose they actually mean when they scream that from the rooftops- and why the exclusive use of ‘we’? Have you by any chance read Anthem?
Stop and think about it. What would it mean if Ilya had made that statement about emotions, literally and in all sincerity? What can we deduce from it?
Harrison, I shutter to even think of a collective emotion, mind, or identity with any 99%. I find group displays of emotions appalling, unless they are displays of joy and admiration from an enthusiastic audience, or intimacy between the intimate. Indeed, I have read Anthem, and I’ve encouraged other to read. It is the depiction of everything wrong with our trend toward collectivism.
Who is talking about the demise of property rights? Whynot respond to what writers on Rand-Marx comparisons have actually written and why or why not you find it compelling instead of respond to a phantom Marxist heresy of objectivist pureness?
This is exactly how ARI dismissed Prof Sciabarra’s great biography of Rand, oh Rand a dialectical thinker that’s just blasphemy! Instead if just taking it at face value and responding to points raised…
In order to apply such terms as “heresy” and “blasphemy” one much be referring to some dogmatic guide to action. Perhaps Marxism is so flexible that one could twist it into anything one wishes it. So spell it out and explain how this “integration” would transpire, if you can. Other than your point that I haven’t read Sciabarra’s book, what points should I be taking at face value?