Why must "Objectivism" = "Ayn Rand"?

The Critics of Objectivism
41

Two things I missed yesterday:

…the first formulation, the one that gets all the credit, but not afforded the inviolable sanctity of Biblical truth.

You’re putting thoughts in people’s heads. If you have any evidence that Objectivists (not random trolls in chat rooms and message forums, but experts in the philosophy) hold Objectivism as something approaching Biblical truth, go ahead and present it. Comments like this are why you and pi-r8 are getting such negative emotional responses. You might not have intended it as an insult, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is.

If it were conceptualized, then its units would consist of any philosophical worldviews that fall under the definition of Objectivism as presented by Ayn Rand – any philosophy that maintains the essential characteristics of Objectivism, without necessarily maintaining perfect agreement with all of the characteristics espoused by Ayn Rand.

What existential outcomes of this appraoch? We will end up with, as I said before, numerous contradicting philosophies, such as the hypothetical non-egoistic Objectivism I postulated, being units of the same concept. If you think Objectivism is true and you say, “Objectivism is any philosophy that maintains all the essential characteristics of Rand’s philosophy,” we are back to ‘Objectivism’ being synonymous with true philosophy. After all, one of the essentials is the law of identity, i.e. consistency. Any falsity would be rules out for being inconsistent, and any new discovery would automatically be ruled in due to its truth.

42

I don’t know why people are discussing this. Once an objective definition has been established it is no longer open to debate. A is A, and the referent of the word Objectivism is the referent of the word Objectivism. Any perceived problems you have with this definition you will just have to swallow, because it is what it is. There is no reason to squabble over the name “Objectivism” when you can simply create a new word for whatever definition it is you are fighting for.

43

Try this trusty web dictionary.

Yes, my fault certainly, I was using a logical fallacies page for reference, not a dictionary.

One Prime Mover wrote, “I’ve heard many people say that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand; to be an Objectivist, you must adhere to it in its entirety, as it was set forth by Ayn Rand.”

A.A wrote, “The way I see it: Ayn Rand was the inventor of the philosophy; she called it Objectivism, and if I am not mistaken, that name is a trade mark of hers (maybe now its Leonard Peikoff`s, I don’t know) . . .”

My discussion of the generic nature of the word “objectivism,” its history in both philosophy and literature prior to Ayn Rand, and the absence of any proprietary claim on the word by Rand or her estate was therefore entirely appropriate in the context of these posts.

Very Well, we are beating a dead horse at this point. I am not overly concerned with continuing in this way and will simply leave it as is. Both points have been stated and are (I believe) irreconcilable.

44

Try this trusty web dictionary.

Non sequitur is Latin for “It does not follow” . . . the spelling is kind of weird anyway, because we use a slightly different alphabet from the Roman one, which had no j.

45

Isn’t the creation of a dogma sort of negating Rand’s initial point of her works? I mean now its ideas are open to people’s alternate interpretations rather than ultimate logic prevailing. When you classify yourself as following a specific dogma or belief that others follow aswell you have ultimatly commited intelectual suicide. Logic will lead to the same end. In stark contrast, a dogma will lead you straight to self(mass) destruction (like the Heavens Gate cult for an extreme and quickly ending example). Your brain is dead… sorry.

46

Maybe everyone is trying too hard here… Ayn Rand famously said “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” She also famously explained her basic beliefs “while standing on one foot,” and then wrote a short explanatory article.

Anyone who agrees with the above sentence plus her one-foot article should, by my logic, be correctly identified as an “Objectivist.” What else would they be? Objectivism is very much in competition (philosophically and linguistically) with ideological alternatives like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Fulan Gong, Positivism, Existentialism, Post-Modernism, Pragmatism, Subjectivism, Cynicism, Stoicism, Aristotleanism, Platonism, etc. If a given person is massively against all of the above and massively sympathetic to Objectivism–that person is probably best identified as an “Objectivist.” The key here is: Do you agree with all the basic principles and main arguments? I know I do.

47

Granted. However, some people do take it too far. Some threads on this message board scare me a little. It makes me laugh when I see people argueing their points basically by saying ‘because Ayn Rand said so’. Not laugh in a good way though. When you laugh at someone with a brained damage it is never a good laugh.

48

I apologize if all of this has been covered in the posts that follow the one to which I am replying. If it has I assume the moderator will delete it.

Objectivism is static; by definition, it is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Only she can effect changes, and she is no longer with us. If new evidence presented itself, or a new logical inconsistency was discovered by a philosophical Einstein, then Objectivism would not endure – instead of allowing itself a small tweak, a minor correction, it would have to be thrown out entirely and a completely new philosophical system introduced in its place.

This is all true. Objectivism is a tightly integrated system. Find an error at any point and it effects the whole, destroys the system and the philosophy would not endure. Perhaps it would be good to describe what sort of mistake – what kind of ‘logical inconsistency’ or what sort of ‘evidence’ – you believe might do that. In my judgement, when I claim that Objectivism is true, I mean that all of it can be reduced to the facts of reality – to what exists. That’s how abstract philosophy is. And, since a philosophy claims to be true of existance qua existance, it must be static, for reality is static in this context (“matter can neither be created nor destroyed” is one expression of this). So it behooves the person that posits some arbitrary “fact” that “might” destroy it, to be specific. Otherwise the claim is completely arbitrary and should be treated as such.

A Threat To Integrity?

The practical seat of my wariness is the fear that, because Objectivism has been afforded such philosophical value, and because it is so resistant to change, a powerful emotional bias against existence is introduced. The bias is to continue supporting Objectivism even in the face of contradictory evidence (should any arise). Obviously such a bias would be irrational, but that doesn’t free us of its threat. Human beings are fallible and no one – not even a forty year veteran of Objectivism – is immune to occasional lapses into irrationality. When the irrationality in question is being compelled by a powerful bias (the unwillingness to reject Objectivism entirely, motivated by the emotional attachment many of you have already confirmed) and necessitates only a small evasion (we are, after all, only discussing comparatively minor changes to Objectivism), I argue that it would be commonplace even in the most well intentioned. The result of this irrationality would threaten the integrity of what I consider to be a hallmark of intellectual achievement. Thus, I consider it a serious and persistent concern.

Same applies here. Name your inconsistancy or your evidence and let’s talk about it. Otherwise your insinuations are arbitrary. The fact that man is fallible is not a license to assume that any particular claim has failed or that any particular thinker has failed IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC COMPLAINT OR EVIDENCE.

Definition By Nonessentials?

Objectivism, as I see it, could be compared to something like Calculus. Calculus is a mathematical formulation originally devised by Newton, as Objectivism is a philosophical formulation devised by Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand has related concept formation to algebra, so this is a parallel that has been drawn before. 

But, of course, we do talk about ‘Newtonian Physics’ to contrast it with the discoveries of ‘Quantum Physics’. Saying that concept formation is like algebra is not the same as giving the essense of her philosophy while standing on one foot.

Like defining men as ‘primates with thumbs,’ defining Objectivism as ‘the philosophy of Ayn Rand’ is a definition by nonessentials.

“The philosophy of Ayn Rand” is not a definition or an attempt at a definition of “Objectivism”. Objectivism is defined by its essential content, which content is contained in and only in the writings of Ayn Rand. “Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand” is no more a definition than “Kantianism is the philosophy of Kant” is a definition. Both are essentially defined by their essential content, as contained in the writings of each.

Tom Rowland

49

It seems like much of this agrument stems from the dogmas surrounding ARI and TOC. I do not know nearly enough about either group to make a judgment about which is right and which is wrong. But it does appear that there was a disagreement over whether Objectivsm is a closed system or a open system. And this is what generated the split. While I agree that it would have to be a closed system to be correct, I also think that there is more that can be written on the subjects than what Ayn Rand wrote and Lenord Peikoff writes. At the same I am very concerned with individuals who call themselves neo-objectivist or post-objectivsts. They seem to want to take bits and pieces of Objectivsm and make them fit into other contradictary philosophies. I personally like the information provided by both ARI and TOC, I have no need to argue about who is more of an objectivist or who is not, but it is important to point out fallacies in anyones thinking, Regardless of who they are and what their position is.

Tettra

50

It seems like much of this agrument stems from the dogmas surrounding ARI and TOC. I do not know nearly enough about either group to make a judgment about which is right and which is wrong.

But you know enough about ARI to say it is dogmatic? Perhaps you might enlighten us with your proof of dogmas coming out of ARI?

51
  1. Firstly, philosophy is defined as the study of the fundamental nature of reality, of Man, and of Man’s relationship to reality (from Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand). So it is the only science in human knowledge that deals with the broadest abstractions possible.

In other words, none of the special sciences (be it the physical or the social sciences) deal with the most fundamental truths because they study only specific aspects of reality or of Man. So philosophy is not similar to mathematics (which is a science of method that formulates quantitative tools like Calculus) or physics (which studies the physical nature of the universe and the physical principles that govern it, as for example, the law of gravity).

Given the above, once a fundamental truth is discovered in philosophy, regardless of who discovers it, there is absolutely nothing (emphasis added) that Man can discover by way of new knowledge about anything in reality that will necessitate either a revision or a rejection of that fundamental truth.

Therefore, the contextual nature of knowledge which applies to truths discovered in the special sciences, does not apply at all to the fundamental truths discovered in philosophy.

  1. Secondly, philosophy, given the above definition, will always contain only the following five branches:

a. Metaphysics, which studies the fundamental principles that govern reality,

b. Epistemology, which studies the fundamental principles that govern reason, which is Man’s only means of gaining knowledge,

c. Ethics, which studies the fundamental principles that govern Man’s choices and actions in the pursuit of values,

d. Politics, which studies the fundamental principles that govern a proper social system,

e. Esthetics, which studies the fundamental principles that govern art.

This means that there is absolutely nothing (emphasis added) that Man can discover by way of new knowledge about anything in reality that will necessitate the addition of a new branch to the already existing five branches. If new branches are ever added, they will be under one or more of the five branches.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing (emphasis added) that Man can discover by way of new knowledge in a new sub-branch that will necessitate either a revision or a rejection of any fundamental truth discovered in the corresponding main branch. This is because any truth discovered in a sub-branch must necessarily be consistent with the fundamental truths that were already discovered in the corresponding main branch.

  1. Thirdly, during her lifetime, Ayn Rand formulated a complete philosophical system and called it Objectivism. This means that Miss Rand discovered fundamental truths in each one of the five branches of philosophy, (which is a common noun) and integrated these truths to formulate her own philosophy to which she gave a specific name, namely, Objectivism (which is, therefore, a proper noun).

Given the above, there is absolutely nothing (emphasis added) that any Objectivist intellectual can discover by way of new knowledge in the science of philosophy and/or psychology that will necessitate either a revision or a rejection of any of the fundamental truths that constitute Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism.

Given all of the above, the word “Objectivism” properly refers to the complete philosophical system formulated by Ayn Rand that contains the fundamental truths that she discovered in each one of the five branches of philosophy. It refers to nothing more and nothing less and is, therefore, closed.

To conclude, when it comes to the fundamental truths that constitute Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, it is only when one has objectively identified them as true by the independent judgment of one’s own mind that one can be in complete agreement with her philosophy. Nothing more is required and nothing less will do.

Ergo, an Objectivist is one who is objective (emphasis added) about Objectivism. Such an individual is neither a cultist nor a dogmatist.

Ramesh Kaimal

52

It seems like much of this agrument stems from the dogmas surrounding ARI and TOC. I do not know nearly enough about either group to make a judgment about which is right and which is wrong. But it does appear that there was a disagreement over whether Objectivsm is a closed system or a open system. And this is what generated the split. While I agree that it would have to be a closed system to be correct, I also think that there is more that can be written on the subjects than what Ayn Rand wrote and Lenord Peikoff writes. At the same I am very concerned with individuals who call themselves neo-objectivist or post-objectivsts. They seem to want to take bits and pieces of Objectivsm and make them fit into other contradictary philosophies. I personally like the information provided by both ARI and TOC, I have no need to argue about who is more of an objectivist or who is not, but it is important to point out fallacies in anyones thinking, Regardless of who they are and what their position is.

Tettra

Tettra,

  1. I’m not sure what you mean by “dogmas” Could you define please..

  2. The argument between ARI and TOC is over more than whether Objectivism is a closed system or not. It is also about the relation between “fact” and “value” and, indeed, which side is legitimately called “Objectivist”. Each believes they are right. Since the views contradict each other, they can’t both be right. They could both be wrong, in which case it doesn’t matter. But otherwise it does matter. I trust you’ll keep looking at the issues involved. Nothing should be accepted on faith or because you feel that it’s easier to give up and not decide. Keep thinking and questioning until you are convinced one way or the other.

  3. Yes it is important to point out fallacies in anyone’s thinking. Have you any that you’d like to discuss?

Tom Rowland

53

But you know enough about ARI to say it is dogmatic?  Perhaps you might enlighten us with your proof of dogmas coming out of ARI?

Notice I say Dogmas surrounding the two organizations. I never claimed that either are dogmatic, although it does seem that there are individuals in either organization or that support these organizations that are dogmatic zealots of some sort. Dogma isn’t necessairly a bad thing I must say, depending on the defintion, however I am refering to a negative notion, in regards to my use of the word in my previous post. Such a dogma is in reference to this silly rivalry and closed-mindedness. You can find examples of this in many of the posts in this thread or others throughout the post. I also have to say that Leonard Peikoff sometimes brushes me the wrong way, but it is his job to protect the integrity of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. It is clear that there are many people who claim to be Ayn Rand Objectivsts that are lying or are confused about what objectivism really is. Many people lift out the parts that they like to hear, while ignoring the important parts. These indviduals are a serious contribution to the strong disliking of objectivism by many non-objectivst. Now, I’m not saying everyone should like the philosophy, but there are many who do not like it because they do not understand it. I have recently been in arguements with people who equate objectivsm to Social darwnism or other distantly similar social philosophies. But this is another topic . I personally don’t have time to find out who is the best objectivst, I instead have time to figure out what ideas are least contradictary to my understanding of the philosophy and also the pursuit of a better understanding of it in general. As I said before it is important to call people out when they are wrong, but I have seen good coming out of both ARI and TOC. Maybe I need to read more into them and their members.

Tettra

54

Such a dogma is in reference to this silly rivalry and closed-mindedness. ..I personally don’t have time to find out who is the best objectivst, I instead have time to figure out what ideas are least contradictary to my understanding of the philosophy and also the pursuit of a better understanding of it in general.

Tettra

Sean,

Your commitment to study more is commendable. One of the things you’ll find out about people on this forum as you do is that we are really big on defining the words that we and others use – like dogma. Another thing we typically do is make sure that we and others back up their statements. When you say that the rivalry is “silly” and “closed-minded” what do you mean and what makes this rivalry fit your definition?

You see, I and a great many others, believe that the issues that divide ARI and TOC are extremely important. Hopefully you’ll come to understand from your reading and study and from our answers here why they are so important to us.

Best premises on your quest.

Tom Rowland