Objectivism As Closed System Ruling?

Website Policy and Announcements
1

Folks, since we have enough threads on what Objectivism is and is not, and on Objectivism as a closed system, at some point I intend to move the posts that address that topic and merge them with one of those threads.

Let’s restrict further posts in this thread to “sexuality”, “social reality”, “volition”, etc..

While you are at it, could you make it a sticky? I’m really sick of having to argue that point over and over. Shouldn’t it be a forum rule that Objectivism is a closed system, and therefore arguments about that fact belong in the debate forum?

Split from original topic here –JMeganSnow

2

My thoughts on this is that it’s beyond insane to expect us to put into the rules every aspect of Objectivism that we would like members to cease debating about. Individual members must bear the responsibility for knowing what they are talking about.

Yes, I know we could all use a break from misinterpretations, but part of the reason this forum is here is to offer answers to questions for would-be Objectivists, not to niggle things with people who like some bits of Objectivism. We could put that into the rules.

3

That is a good point, but I do have something that makes it necessary as a rule:

That is, since the rules are that you can’t post things attacking or arguing against Objectivism in the regular forums, I believe it is necessary to have the closed nature of Objectivism mentioned in order for that rule to have any meaning.

4

That is a good point, but I do have something that makes it necessary as a rule:

That is, since the rules are that you can’t post things attacking or arguing against Objectivism in the regular forums, I believe it is necessary to have the closed nature of Objectivism mentioned in order for that rule to have any meaning.

In the history of anything that represents reality, perception of that ‘reality’ changes with progress/discoveries. For example, Newtonian mechanics is not incompatible with Einstein’s relativity, yet relativity is clearly an advance in physics.

I think you really have to be careful to make the distinction that Objectivism is closed only in the sense that Newtonian physics is closed and not physics itself. This has been pointed out. However, revisions to Newtonian physics are sometimes correct. I don’t see this attitude here much (haven’t read everything though).

To assume Objectivism is truth is fine. To assume it’s the whole truth is not rational. It must be extended and/or amended to progress or risk being retired as an historical artifact.

5

To assume Objectivism is truth is fine. To assume it’s the whole truth is not rational. It must be extended and/or amended to progress or risk being retired as an historical artifact.

This, along with the rest of your post, is completely false.

Objectivism IS a “historical artifact.” It may not be revised, expanded, or extended. Whatever other truths we discover, they are not Objectivism, which was the philosophy of Ayn Rand that finished expanding when she died. :slight_smile: :dough: :dough:

6

This, along with the rest of your post, is completely false.

Objectivism IS a “historical artifact.” It may not be revised, expanded, or extended. Whatever other truths we discover, they are not Objectivism, which was the philosophy of Ayn Rand that finished expanding when she died. :slight_smile: :dough: :dough:

This is fundamentally an opinion, not shared by everyone that calls themselves Objectivist. I have no such opinion either way.

However, I understand what you’re saying. This is a definition issue of what it means to be “closed”. A definition is what it is, there’s no disgreement here. You need to read a little more thoroughly.

My entire post is not false. You’re wrong. This is part of the problem that I touched on.

The last part of my post however, wasn’t properly written. What I meant to explain was, that if you apply the ‘closed’ definition erroneously to either stifle or eliminate debate regarding truths, whether fundamental or derived, this will kill or at lease severely limit the Objectivist movement. I was mistaken in implying that Objectivism included revisions/expansions. However, it is most certainly a mistake to assume that none are needed - not to complete Objectivism, but to more fully reflect reality.

7

However, it is most certainly a mistake to assume that none are needed - not to complete Objectivism, but to more fully reflect reality.

I am frustrated to no end that people continuously mistake the idea that Objectivism is a closed system with something in opposition to the statement above.

Nobody has ever assumed anything of the sort and where on earth did you get the idea that anyone did?!? I find it rather tiresome that people keep baselessly associating the view that Objectivism is complete with the view that no new truths exist to be discovered or the view that Objectivism can never be wrong. (as opposed to the rational judgment that is isn’t in fact wrong)

This is fundamentally an opinion, not shared by everyone that calls themselves Objectivist.

No, it is not an opinion, it is a fact. Ayn Rand specifically enumerated that her philosophy, Objectivism, was a closed system. There are people who call themselves Objectivists who do not agree (TOC comes to mind), but they are wrong.

8

Nobody has ever assumed anything of the sort and where on earth did you get the idea that anyone did?!? I find it rather tiresome that people keep baselessly associating the view that Objectivism is complete with the view that no new truths exist to be discovered or the view that Objectivism can never be wrong. (as opposed to the rational judgment that is isn’t in fact wrong)

No, it is not an opinion, it is a fact. Ayn Rand specifically enumerated that her philosophy, Objectivism, was a closed system. There are people who call themselves Objectivists who do not agree (TOC comes to mind), but they are wrong.

Closed, but not complete. OK, that makes sense, fine. The error in the view that Objectivism can never be wrong might be given some lip service here, but the forum rules state that anti-O statements must be confined to debates, and these actions speak louder (not to mention the hostility to opposing views).

I also need to look up more on what Rand said about the closed issue, but I do recall something about the ‘wording’ being owned, but not the concepts or discoveries. Closing the body of work is obvious when somebody dies. However, there is no label given for extentions. One can only call themselves an Objectivist if they agree with it in it’s entirety without modification. A semantic distinction, but it sounds very dogmatic and is counter productive.

9

A semantic distinction, but it sounds very dogmatic and is counter productive.

That’s a non-sequitur. There’s no reason why the insistence on a semantically accurate point that fulfills a necessary function (i.e. not ascribing to Ayn Rand that which she did not in fact say) is necessarily dogmatic!

Again, I am so sick of that attitude. Kindly offer a proof as to why the desire for accuracy in that regard is necessarily and in all cases an example of dogmatism.

Closed, but not complete. OK, that makes sense, fine.

The only sense in which it can be considered “incomplete” is the view that it must include all human knowledge everywhere, which is a ridiculous requirement.

In the sense that the philosophy has all of its basic and fundamental principles in place, from which any other needed factor can be derived, Objectivism is most certainly “complete.”

The error in the view that Objectivism can never be wrong might be given some lip service here,

Well, what do you expect? It is the personal evaluation each Objectivist here that Objectivism is entirely true. While this is not a dogmatically accepted belief, it is in fact a belief that we are quite sure of!

Add to that the fact that the quality of the arguments against Objectivism we receive is almost universally abysmal, and you might understand that petty rantings about “you’re all dogmatists because you won’t listen to me” become VERY tiresome.

To everyone who has called “dogmatism” here: We are not rejecting your argument because we are dogmatic: we are rejecting it because you are wrong!.

but the forum rules state that anti-O statements must be confined to debates, and these actions speak louder (not to mention the hostility to opposing views)

That’s a blatantly false and rather insulting statement. The fact that there’s a debate forum is not enough for you? We have to actually allow you to attack Objectivism anywhere on the forum, or else we’re being “dogmatists?”

No, I bet that’s not enough! We’d have to actually agree with your blatantly false argument against Objectivism before we’d escape that label. Agree with them despite our judgment to the contrary! Dogmatically AGREE WITH YOU. Or else we’re “dogmatists.”

I’ve had ENOUGH of this ****.

10

Sparky, Since you’re new to Objectivism, you probably aren’t aware that there already are some places one can go on the web, where people who have read Ayn Rand’s fiction and non-fiction will give you reasons why various aspects of it are wrong. The newsgroup alt.philosophy.objectivism is one. Indeed so much is allowed there, that I wouldn’t recommend it even to an “anti-Objectivist”. Another, more useful place, but still one where a lot of anti-Objectivist discussion is allowed is the newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism. You’ll find a few smaller groups too, if you search Google Groups.

The point – then – is that this is not the place for those discussions. Not primarily. I’m sure there are some members here who use at least one of those groups, or some other similar group. That’s fine. If someone is expressing an anarchist viewpoint on some other newsgroup, but sticks to our rules here, that’s fine. It is like: if you want to have a paintball fight, you can go to the appropriate place. Don’t be shooting up our furniture and splattering the walls at home. If we want to fight, we’ll join you there.

I give you the references to those newsgroups more than happily, because they do not compete with OO.net. Rather, their existence helps us in the sense that it gives people a venue for certain types of discussions that we are not interested in when we are here.

As one of it’s objectives, OO.net helps new students of Objectivism understand the philosophy better. Being new to Objectivism, such people often use terms that rankle. They often bring up issues that have been discussed to death before. Sometimes this results in an irritated response. However, by and large, as long as people are polite, and come across as wanting to learn rather than wanting to tell us how wrong we are, they are responded to with politeness.

Indeed, if anything, some members complain that we are too accommodative. The problem with being too accommodative is that it works against one other objective of the web-site, which is to let more seasoned Objectivists enrich their lives by sharing values and ideas with each other. Some members come to OO.net for sanctuary. They know where to go if they want to argue with people who tell them what’s wrong with Objectivism. We have no intention of making OO.net like one of those other places. Members who conclude that it is, may move on to places that give them the atmosphere they are looking for. To let OO.net reach a point where this is a common judgement of seasoned Objectivists would actually defeat all it’s purposes.

The debate forum was created (after much discussion) to allow some amount of such discussion to take place without that becoming the norm for the site.

11

This is precisely why we need forum rules to define this kind of thing. So that we don’t have to constantly answer the cries of losers who insist that just because we don’t agree with them, that we must be dogmatic.

The debate forum is where they can put up or shut up. We don’t need nonsense in the rest of the forum, confusing newcomers who honestly want to learn about Objectivism.

Frankly, I’d be rather hard pressed to want to continue participating if the environment here allows this sort of thing outside the debate forum.

12

This is precisely why we need forum rules to define this kind of thing. So that we don’t have to constantly answer the cries of losers who insist that just because we don’t agree with them, that we must be dogmatic.

The debate forum is where they can put up or shut up. We don’t need nonsense in the rest of the forum, confusing newcomers who honestly want to learn about Objectivism.

Frankly, I’d be rather hard pressed to want to continue participating if the environment here allows this sort of thing outside the debate forum.

How is this type of behaviour not disciplined? I was ‘reprimanded’ for stating that a response that I found deliberately insulting and deliberately false was not worth a response, yet this above goes unchallenged. Do I need to outline how huge a double standard this is? Or do you simply want to operate this way?

Edit: A mistake I see quite a bit here in this type of response is the implied assumption that a disagreement or ignorance with respect to Rand/Objectivism implies an intellectual inferiority. Ever consider any rules regarding this?

13

A mistake I see quite a bit here in this type of response is the implied assumption that a disagreement or ignorance with respect to Rand/Objectivism implies an intellectual inferiority. Ever consider any rules regarding this?

Did you read my post (above)? The fact that we do not want to talk to certain types of people on this forum or the fact that we do not wish to discuss certain topics on this forum relates to the purpose of the forum, not to any assumption about a particular person’s intellectual superiority/inferiority.

As I said in my post above, there are other places to discuss certain aspects that we do not want to discuss here. If we want to come to those places and join the discussion, we know they exist and we will come there.

If you want to read previous discussions on Objectivism as a closed system and about whether Objectivists are dogmatic, read this and this and this and this and this and this and this. After reading those threads, if you still want to discuss whether many Objectivists are dogmatists, do not do it in this forum. Use the links I provided in my post above, and you will find people who are more than happy to discuss this with you.

My advice would be this: take the purposes of this forum as a given, already decided by the owner. Within that, you need to figure out how to use this forum to your advantage.

14

Did you read my post (above)? The fact that we do not want to talk to certain types of people on this forum or the fact that we do not wish to discuss certain topics on this forum relates to the purpose of the forum, not to any assumption about a particular person’s intellectual superiority/inferiority.

As I said in my post above, there are other places to discuss certain aspects that we do not want to discuss here. If we want to come to those places and join the discussion, we know they exist and we will come there.

My advice would be this: take the purposes of this forum as a given, already decided by the owner. Within that, you need to figure out how to use this forum to your advantage.

You’re missing the point. I am not arguing for or against Objectivists as dogmatic, just a couple examples of a rude and imperious (more accurate than dogmatic) responses and the resulting double standard regarding conduct.

Words like ‘losers’ for example was my objection. It’s pretty obvious that this assumes inferiority.

I also mentioned that it’s clear that you (as a group) resent anyone even holding out the possibility that Objectivism is wrong on any point. Nothing wrong with this, it’s just a fact. Only the denial of it would be wrong. I happen to think it’s wrong not to consider the possibility, that’s all.

I really don’t know why you and others read so much extra into my post(s).

15

How is this type of behaviour not disciplined? I was ‘reprimanded’ for stating that a response that I found deliberately insulting and deliberately false was not worth a response, yet this above goes unchallenged. Do I need to outline how huge a double standard this is? Or do you simply want to operate this way?

Just a guess, as I do not speak for the management:

Are you familiar with the principle of Justice? I know on my forum at least, I will look the other way on rude behavior when it is a deserved response to other rude behavior, especially when the target is someone who has insulted the forum or its members…

16

especially when the target is someone who has insulted the forum or its members…

Such as someone who has said in response to a post of yours (in a post to which I will not link because it is now in the moderator’s forum), “Rewritten (in language hopefully you can understand)”?

17

I also mentioned that it’s clear that you (as a group) resent anyone even holding out the possibility that Objectivism is wrong on any point. Nothing wrong with this, it’s just a fact. Only the denial of it would be wrong.

I, for one, do NOT resent anyone for holding that Objectivism is wrong on any point - that is, so long as the person attempts to back up such a position using facts and logic. And if someone actually can demonstrate that Objectivism is wrong on a given point, such a person will have my profound gratitude as I will have learned something and had an opportunity to correct an error.

What I…well, I won’t say “resent,” but rather “refuse to take seriously”…are those who go around asserting that it is possible that Objectivism is wrong but refuse to back up any specific claim that it actually is wrong. My attitude towards such things is: put up or shut up. If one is to make such a claim, then defend it (in the appropriate venue, of course).

This reminds me of a comment someone made to me in a philosophical debate a number of years ago. The person I was having the discussion with was a decent enough fellow - but he had very mixed and confused premises. One time when we were debating something and I was basically making mincemeat out of his arguments he said to me in frustration: “You are always right, aren’t you?” The tone in which he said it suggested that always being right was somehow a flaw.

I have also had people say to me: “You always have to be right, don’t you?” Uhhmmmm…yes, I do. Why would I wish to be otherwise? It is as if they actually expect me to respond by saying: “You have a point - I will try to be wrong once in a while just to make it fair.”

There is a term to describe going through life in a constant state of doubt that one’s knowledge is not valid based on an unspecified open-ended “possibility” that one might be wrong: skepticism. And skepticism is basically what your position here amounts to, Sparky.

I am not as convinced as Inspector that Sparky was necessarily attempting to be rude or insulting. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who equate any worldview which claims certainty with intrinsicism/dogmatism - and, historically, there are reasons why one might honestly jump to such a conclusion. Objectivism rejects both skepticism and intrinsicism and the Objectivist literature very specifically addresses the issues you raise, Sparky. If you are interested, buy or borrow a copy of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and read the sections where Dr. Peikoff talks about “Certainty As Contextual” (look in the index under “certainty”). You will see that Objectivism regards knowledge as “open” in the sense that it allows for new evidence and new discoveries. What is NOT “open,” however is Objectivism because, sadly, Ayn Rand is no longer around to take cognizance of any such new evidence and discoveries which may come along and incorporate them into her philosophy. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take cognizance of such new discoveries - but it would not be correct to regard them as Objectivism.

The point is, Sparky, the concerns you have raised in your postings have already been more than adequately addressed in the Objectivist literature - so if you are going to start posting to an Objectivist forum before you have taken the time necessary to read what Objectivism has to say about that which you are posting about, don’t be too surprised if your posting does not go over too well and people refuse to take you seriously.

As to why people here are not willing to argue such matters outside of the “debate” forum - well, part of it is because the arguments for skepticism that you are making are nothing new. We have heard them over and over and over again - and they have been more than adequately addressed in the Objectivist literature. There is nothing inherently dishonest with someone holding the view that you do if, based on your knowledge, you truly believe it to be the case - it is a pretty common reaction that people who have bought into certain mainstream philosophical premises often have when they are initially exposed to the philosophy. Most regulars do not participate in forums such as this one to rehash the same old objections over and over again. SoftwareNerd is correct: there are better places for such discussions. At least when I hung out there a few years go, there used to be a small handful of knowledgeable Objectivists “slumming” over on hpo on Usenet - and my guess is there still are. If you are polite and respectful, I suspect that you might find one or two who will be happy to debate the issue with you.

I happen to think it’s wrong not to consider the possibility, that’s all.

Well… let’s throw that one back at you: perhaps you ought to consider the “possibility” that your understanding of the actual Objectivist position on this issue is not as great as you apparently think it is.