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