Objectivist Contradictions

[sjw]

Slipshod reasoning makes a person careless and possibly wrong, but it has nothing to do with arrogance. We all know that you disagree with Rand on patents and copyrights. So do I. I disagree with every philosopher who has ever existed about something. So what?

Ghs

Not having lived in the crosshairs of the vicious patent system, I suppose I can excuse you for thinking this is a mere "disagreement." But I wonder if you would have the same attitude if Ayn Rand had written an article supporting the War on Drugs.

Shayne

If Ayn Rand had disagreed with me about the War on Drugs, then, yes, I would call this a "disagreement." (I never used the qualifier "mere.) What would you call it? A meeting of minds?

Ghs

Therein lies the difference between you and me. First, the dishonest dropping of the word "mere." Second, not seeing something such as backing the War on Drugs as the heinous, condemnation-deserving thing that it is. Evidently, the only thing you condemn is uppity political philosophers, but that's probably only because someone's on your turf.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... people can develop or criticize Rand's ideas all they like, but their developments and criticisms are their own, not Rand's. They are therefore not part of Objectivism, as Rand understood the label.

This is why I have never called myself an "Objectivist," even during my early days when I agreed with Rand in virtually every respect. I was unwilling to identify myself in terms of the ideas of another person. I called myself a "Randian" (and still do in some contexts) in the same sense that I sometimes call myself an Aristotelian or a Lockean. Such labels indicate general currents of thought; they do not signify complete agreement with the ideas of a given philosopher.

George,

I have a slightly different take on this.

I agree that when a person is at variance with an idea of another person, he should make that clear. I don't agree, though, that calling yourself an Objectivist is indicative that you are in lockstep with everything Rand understood by that term just because she said you must be.

The reason is the following.

If Objectivism were a book like Atlas Shrugged, a story, that would be one thing. What do people do with stories? They read them, contemplate them, but ultimately return to their own realities at the end. The world of AS stays in AS and it would be silly for anyone to say he was a member of Atlas Shrugged.

Now, look at the philosophy, Objectivism. This was marketed on purpose by Rand and Branden as "a philosophy for living on earth." In other words, it is a tool (an intellectual tool, but still a tool), not a story. And what does a person who buys a tool do with it. He adapts it to his own needs and desires as he uses it.

Now before anyone thinks I am proposing that you can butcher the philosophy and still call it Objectivism, I am not. I will explain by example to make it clear.

Suppose I buy another product for use on earth--a vehicle for driving on earth, say a Rolls Royce. This car is manufactured in a certain manner, painted a certain group of colors, the engine has very precise specifications and so forth. Now suppose I put in bullet-proof plating, paint it another color, cut and install a sunroof where one does not exist, etc.

Do I still have a Rolls Royce? I certainly do. I think it would be silly if the company said, "If you do any of those things, you can still drive this car, but you can no longer call it a Rolls Royce."

Now if you take it to a chop shop, keep the frame and bodywork, but put in a totally new engine, say from a Volkswagen bug, I agree that this is no longer a Rolls Royce. So there's a tipping point. But it's generally pretty obvious what that is when you look at what someone has done with the product.

This is how I see my use of the product, Objectivism--"a philosophy for living on earth."

I do admit the term "Objectivist" has a certain sense of tribal identification to it that I intensely dislike. But there is a sense in which I use the term that is not what is usually postulated in these debates. I use it in the same manner as I would if I called myself "a Rolls Royce owner."

I think of myself as the owner of the Objectivism that is in my head. I bought the books. I put in the time and effort in to understand the ideas. I adapted them to suit my values. I own those ideas and use them. And when I tell other people about those ideas, even when I am including my own additions or changes, I tell them where the core came from. I see nothing wrong with giving clear attribution of what is what (in fact, I hold that is the only way to roll), but I also see nothing wrong with employing the name of the product I use.

To say it differently, Objectivism is part of my life, I am not part of it (whatever the hell "it" is). And I am proud of the independent thinking I have done, so I am loathe to attribute that thinking to Rand. This is another good reason I have to keep the attribution standard high.

So in that sense, as the owner of the Objectivism that is in my head (but with no intent on considering myself as the author), I call myself an Objectivist. It's also useful for people who do not know me to get a general bearing on where I am coming from. They will find out about the independent part soon enough if they engage with me. But at least they will know they will be interacting with someone who holds a lot of Rand-like ideas and not, say, core ideas from communism or Christianity.

I do not think of myself, though, as a person out to save the world according to an organized philosophical movement based on a fundamentalist interpretation of Rand's works, which is what many people who call themselves Objectivists want that term to mean--to the exclusion of all other meanings. I don't grant them that authority over my life, either. Still, I tend to not use this label much when a lot of blah blah blah will result and I am highly interested in something else under discussion. At other times, like now, I qualify myself.

Which is valid? Your approach or mine?

I believe both are. It just depends on what standard you use and if you are clear about what you are doing. Also, I have no issue with the restrictions you presented because you did so in terms of your life, not mine. You have your reasons and I respect that. Also, I don't see you trying to boss others around, saying they should do this or that with the term because otherwise they are evil scum, parasites, or on the other side, Randroid goons or whatever. I respect that, too.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Slipshod reasoning makes a person careless and possibly wrong, but it has nothing to do with arrogance. We all know that you disagree with Rand on patents and copyrights. So do I. I disagree with every philosopher who has ever existed about something. So what?

Ghs

Not having lived in the crosshairs of the vicious patent system, I suppose I can excuse you for thinking this is a mere "disagreement." But I wonder if you would have the same attitude if Ayn Rand had written an article supporting the War on Drugs.

Shayne

If Ayn Rand had disagreed with me about the War on Drugs, then, yes, I would call this a "disagreement." (I never used the qualifier "mere.) What would you call it? A meeting of minds?

Ghs

Therein lies the difference between you and me. First, the dishonest dropping of the word "mere." Second, not seeing something such as backing the War on Drugs as the heinous, condemnation-deserving thing that it is. Evidently, the only thing you condemn is uppity political philosophers, but that's probably only because someone's on your turf.

Shayne

I suggest that you stick to the issue at hand and not get too emotional about this.

I would certainly have condemned Rand if she had supported the War on Drugs. But she didn't do this, did she? I would also have condemned her if she had supported communism. But she didn't do this either.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I think what you said about the Rolls is valid, Michael, but I question whether that travels by analogy over to the philosophy. What is a "sunroof" in Objectivism, for example, or a different color?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

OPAR is only that, her philosophy (not that book). If she wanted it to travel then she'd have indicated that all the cultural top-heavy stuff was her add-on and optional.

--Brant

[sjw]

I would certainly have condemned Rand if she had supported the War on Drugs. But she didn't do this, did she? I would also have condemned her if she had supported communism. But she didn't do this either.

Ghs

So now you're flip-flopping. Now if you can just flip flop one more time and we'll be there.

I condemn her support of the patent system as an attack on the property rights of the independent inventor, and I condemn the slipshod reasoning that both led her to support it and continues to set a bad example for Objectivists on how to "reason" about individual rights. If you can "reason" yourself into supporting patents then you are totally off the rails and everything you say on individual rights is suspect.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

OPAR is only that, her philosophy (not that book). If she wanted it to travel then she'd have indicated that all the cultural top-heavy stuff was her add-on and optional.

Brant,

She and her assigns sold this on the open market. So it doesn't matter what else "she wanted it to travel" as.

It traveled as a product.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I would certainly have condemned Rand if she had supported the War on Drugs. But she didn't do this, did she? I would also have condemned her if she had supported communism. But she didn't do this either.

Ghs

So now you're flip-flopping. Now if you can just flip flop one more time and we'll be there.

I disagree with antisemitism. I also condemn antisemitism. There is no flip flopping here.

I condemn her support of the patent system as an attack on the property rights of the independent inventor, and I condemn the slipshod reasoning that both led her to support it and continues to set a bad example for Objectivists on how to "reason" about individual rights. If you can "reason" yourself into supporting patents then you are totally off the rails and everything you say on individual rights is suspect.

Okay. I, on the other hand, regard Rand's theory of rights as well grounded. I just don't think she correctly applied her own theory to patents and copyrights. This happens all the time. For example, I have a high regard for John Locke's overall theory of rights and government, even though I think he weaseled out when it came to the specific application of his theory of government by consent.

Do I "condemn" Locke for his defense of tacit consent? No, not really. "Condemn" is too strong of a word (for reasons I won't go into here) - even though the historical consequences of the tacit consent doctrine have been far more deleterious than Rand's status quo approach to patents. And I certainly would never call Locke "arrogant" for defending what I regard as a mistaken and pernicious theory.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

OPAR is only that, her philosophy (not that book). If she wanted it to travel then she'd have indicated that all the cultural top-heavy stuff was her add-on and optional.

Brant,

She and her assigns sold this on the open market. So it doesn't matter what else "she wanted it to travel" as.

It traveled as a product.

Michael

Exactamente! But it wasn't really made for that--it was made to smash its way into the culture.

--Brant

without the critical thinking one would suppose would go hand in hand with "a philosophy of reason"

Edited March 10, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

If Ayn Rand had disagreed with me about the War on Drugs, then, yes, I would call this a "disagreement." (I never used the qualifier "mere.) What would you call it? A meeting of minds?

Ghs

Therein lies the difference between you and me. First, the dishonest dropping of the word "mere."

...

Dishonest? Your use of "mere" implied something that I never said or meant to imply; this is why I pointed it out.

Why are you getting so personal? Did you enjoy our last flamewar so much that you are itching for another one? Stick to the issues and we will have no problem.

Ghs

[sjw]

Okay. I, on the other hand, regard Rand's theory of rights as well grounded. I just don't think she correctly applied her own theory to patents and copyrights.

From my vantage point, the fact that she could sustain the "argument" she did in that essay throws her in very bad light as a serious philosopher. Further, I think her woozy "theory" of rights is what permitted it in the first place. Her main virtue with respect to rights was her attitude about them, not the content of her thinking. She displayed the high regard we should all have for them, and did that very well.

This happens all the time. For example, I have a high regard for John Locke's overall theory of rights and government, even though I think he weaseled out when it came to the specific application of his theory of government by consent. Do I "condemn" Locke for his defense of tacit consent? No, not really. "Condemn" is too strong of a word (for reasons I won't go into here) - even though the historical consequences of the tacit consent doctrine have been far more deleterious than Rand's status quo approach to patents. And I certainly would never call Locke "arrogant" for defending what I regard as a mistaken and pernicious theory.

I don't think Locke was nearly as bad as you think he was on this point and he was definitely not as bad as Rand is on patents. When I read his treatise on government, I was specifically focussed on nailing him on this point because consent is one of my big issues, and as it turns out, he didn't deserve to be nailed because in this connection he specifically referred to the ability of going off into the wilderness if you don't like your local government. In his time there still was a wilderness to go off to. Not that I fully exempt him from criticism, but his age was different, government was not nearly as technological and megalomaniacal as it has become.

Shayne

[sjw]

Why are you getting so personal? Did you enjoy our last flamewar so much that you are itching for another one? Stick to the issues and we will have no problem.

Ghs

OK. Sorry.

Shayne

[sjw]

Here is one quote supporting my contention about Locke, it is not the only one, just one I happened to find just now (emphasis mine):

Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of Nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

In basic terms, the implication here is my own theory of government. In fact I really should have cited this one in my book. My only criticism of Locke is in not underscoring the absolute necessity of leaving some part of Nature for men to have their perfect liberty in. That is one of the things I strongly emphasize in my book.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

... people can develop or criticize Rand's ideas all they like, but their developments and criticisms are their own, not Rand's. They are therefore not part of Objectivism, as Rand understood the label.

This is why I have never called myself an "Objectivist," even during my early days when I agreed with Rand in virtually every respect. I was unwilling to identify myself in terms of the ideas of another person. I called myself a "Randian" (and still do in some contexts) in the same sense that I sometimes call myself an Aristotelian or a Lockean. Such labels indicate general currents of thought; they do not signify complete agreement with the ideas of a given philosopher.

George,

I have a slightly different take on this.

I agree that when a person is at variance with an idea of another person, he should make that clear. I don't agree, though, that calling yourself an Objectivist is indicative that you are in lockstep with everything Rand understood by that term just because she said you must be.

The reason is the following.

If Objectivism were a book like Atlas Shrugged, a story, that would be one thing. What do people do with stories? They read them, contemplate them, but ultimately return to their own realities at the end. The world of AS stays in AS and it would be silly for anyone to say he was a member of Atlas Shrugged.

Now, look at the philosophy, Objectivism. This was marketed on purpose by Rand and Branden as "a philosophy for living on earth." In other words, it is a tool (an intellectual tool, but still a tool), not a story. And what does a person who buys a tool do with it. He adapts it to his own needs and desires as he uses it.

My analogy between "Objectivism" and Atlas Shrugged was intended to point out that both are proper rather than common nouns, according to Rand. "Objectivism" refers to the ideas of a specific individual. It does not encompass ideas that Rand did not express or approve of.

Another analogy would be variations on a musical theme. Such variations may be wonderful -- they may even be better than the original composition -- but if composed by someone other than the original composer, they are variations, not the theme itself, and they should not use the same title as the original.

I agree that people will, and should, adapt Objectivism (i.e., the ideas of Ayn Rand) to their own needs and desires. But if they are using ideas that Ayn Rand did not express or endorse, then what they are adapting is not Objectivism, strictly speaking.

There are problems here, of course, most of which have been discussed before. For example, what about the logical implications of one of Rand's theories? May this be said to be part of "Objectivism," even though Rand never talked about it? There is no easy answer to this question. I would say Yes when the implication is obvious, but No when it is not.

Another problem concerns the issue of fundamentality. (I believe Rand addressed this issue herself.) Must one agree with all of Rand's ideas in order to qualify as an Objectivist, or is it only necessary to agree with her fundamental ideas? This is a tricky issue, since what is fundamental to some people may not be fundamental to other people, so I have no ready answer.

In the final analysis, I don't consider these problems as important. What matters is whether or not you can justify your beliefs, not whether you agree with someone else.

When developing her ideas, Rand didn't care in the least whether or not she agreed with anyone else. She was fiercely independent -- a freethinker in the purest sense. This is the example we should follow.

Ghs

[sjw]

When developing her ideas, Rand didn't care in the least whether or not she agreed with anyone else. She was fiercely independent -- a freethinker in the purest sense. This is the example we should follow.

Ghs

Indeed.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Here is one quote supporting my contention about Locke, it is not the only one, just one I happened to find just now (emphasis mine):

Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of Nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

In basic terms, the implication here is my own theory of government. In fact I really should have cited this one in my book. My only criticism of Locke is in not underscoring the absolute necessity of leaving some part of Nature for men to have their perfect liberty in. That is one of the things I strongly emphasize in my book.

Shayne

Locke did in fact underscore some areas in which people should enjoy the absolute liberty that they would enjoy in a state of nature. One was freedom of conscience, especially in religious matters. He wrote extensively on this topic.

Locke also underscored the principle that individuals can never surrender the basic right of self-defense that they would enjoy in a state of nature. This was the basis for his defense of the rights of resistance and revolution.

Locke's theory of implied consent is a disaster. It basically amounts to a theory of "love it or leave it."

Ghs

[sjw]

Locke's theory of implied consent is a disaster. It basically amounts to a theory of "love it or leave it."

Ghs

This is a valid view when you're on someone's property. When governmental jurisdictions are formed on the basis of legitimate land ownership, then Locke's consent theory is perfectly fine. The only problem is that he wasn't precise about this.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Locke's theory of implied consent is a disaster. It basically amounts to a theory of "love it or leave it."

Ghs

This is a valid view when you're on someone's property. When governmental jurisdictions are formed on the basis of legitimate land ownership, then Locke's consent theory is perfectly fine. The only problem is that he wasn't precise about this.

Shayne

Your approach differs radically from Locke's in a number of fundamental ways. It is not a matter of Locke being imprecise. For example, I doubt if you would agree with Locke that poor people have an enforceable right to charity. Nor do I think you would agree with Locke that we have no right to commit suicide. There are other fundamental differences as well, such as Locke's conception of political power as "a right of making laws with penalties of death." This conception is what led Locke to distinguish political power from the power that parents have over their children, a master over his servant, etc.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Another analogy would be variations on a musical theme. Such variations may be wonderful -- they may even be better than the original composition -- but if composed by someone other than the original composer, they are variations, not the theme itself, and they should not use the same title as the original.

George,

In other words, a jazz rendition of a popular song where there are long stretches of improvisation should not use the title of the song?

Or maybe a version where the melody is changed? Say like Tina Turner's rendition of the Beatles's song, "Help"? You don't think she should have used the title of the song?

I disagree.

Anyway, that was not a good analogy for what I was talking about.

I was talking about product owner and user (or, in the music example, performer). As product producer (or composer to keep to the music example), it changes.

If someday I decide to write my own books on philosophy--i.e., produce my own products, I certainly will not call them "Objectivism." Frankly, I don't think I would call them anything. Like with your variations on a theme analogy, I would consider including "Variations on Objectivism" in the title if providing a variation on Objectivism were my purpose (which I do not see happening right now). But I would have no compunction about saying that, philosophically, over the years, I have identified with Objectivism more than anything else and have referred to myself as an Objectivist in my qualified sense of the term. I also would have no compunction about calling one such work or other "an outgrowth of Objectivism."

That's nonfiction. But I am also set on writing fiction. I am starting to write some works (like this little thing that recently popped out of my head on its own: "Lethal Guilt"). I will not call my future works "Objectivist fiction," although I suspect some people will notice the influence and pigeon-hole some works that way.

If you want to be exact, there is a good dose of libertariansim in my thinking too, although I would never call my own work "libertariansim."

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Objectivism" refers to the ideas of a specific individual. It does not encompass ideas that Rand did not express or approve of.

George,

I want to add this. Objectivism also refers to a social movement. One that Rand sanctioned when NBI was founded. After it was in motion and had grown, she tried to step away from it and take her title back.

But reality does not change by decree or wishing. Once you create something, you can destroy it. But you cannot decree it to vanish and say, "I now forbid this." Not even Ayn Rand can do that and make it real. The movement exists even until today--under the same title she originally assigned to it, i.e., "Objectivist movement."

That's a second meaning for Objectivism--one which Rand herself helped create.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Another analogy would be variations on a musical theme. Such variations may be wonderful -- they may even be better than the original composition -- but if composed by someone other than the original composer, they are variations, not the theme itself, and they should not use the same title as the original.

George,

In other words, a jazz rendition of a popular song where there are long stretches of improvisation should not use the title of the song?

Or maybe a version where the melody is changed? Say like Tina Turner's rendition of the Beatles's song, "Help"? You don't think she should have used the title of the song?

I disagree.

Anyway, that was not a good analogy for what I was talking about.

I was talking about product owner and user (or, in the music example, performer). As product producer (or composer to keep to the music example), it changes.

If someday I decide to write my own books on philosophy--i.e., produce my own products, I certainly will not call them "Objectivism." Frankly, I don't think I would call them anything. Like with your variations on a theme analogy, I would consider including "Variations on Objectivism" in the title if providing a variation on Objectivism were my purpose (which I do not see happening right now). But I would have no compunction about saying that, philosophically, over the years, I have identified with Objectivism more than anything else and have referred to myself as an Objectivist in my qualified sense of the term. I also would have no compunction about calling one such work or other "an outgrowth of Objectivism."

That's nonfiction. But I am also set on writing fiction. I am starting to write some works (like this little thing that recently popped out of my head on its own: "Lethal Guilt"). I will not call my future works "Objectivist fiction," although I suspect some people will notice the influence and pigeon-hole some works that way.

If you want to be exact, there is a good dose of libertarianism in my thinking too, although I would never call my own work "libertarianism."

Michael

I was thinking of variations in classical music, such as Variations on a Theme of Paganini, by Brahms. In jazz, it is implicitly understood that improvisations are variations based on the chord progressions in the original tune. But I have no stake in defending this analogy. All analogies break down sooner or later, which is why they are best used as illustrations rather than as arguments.

I'm not sure where we disagree, or even if we disagree at all. I have no problem with people who call themselves "Objectivists," despite their disagreements with Rand, so long as they explain what they mean by this label.

My point was originally raised as a response to the charge that Rand made Objectivism a religion by freezing it, i.e., by prohibiting its development by others, in effect. But Rand didn't do this; in fact, there is no realistic way that a person can prohibit others from developing variations of his or her philosophy. Rand's point was that if your ideas deviate from her ideas, then what you are defending is not Objectivism, because "Objectivism" means the ideas of Ayn Rand.

Ghs

Addendum: As Rand put it in the Introduction to For the New Intellectual: "For reasons which are made clear in the following pages, the name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism." (My italics.)

[George H. Smith]

"Objectivism" refers to the ideas of a specific individual. It does not encompass ideas that Rand did not express or approve of.

George,

I want to add this. Objectivism also refers to a social movement. One that Rand sanctioned when NBI was founded. After it was in motion and had grown, she tried to step away from it and take her title back.

But reality does not change by decree or wishing. Once you create something, you can destroy it. But you cannot decree it to vanish and say, "I now forbid this." Not even Ayn Rand can do that and make it real. The movement exists even until today--under the same title she originally assigned to it, i.e., "Objectivist movement."

That's a second meaning for Objectivism--one which Rand herself helped create.

Michael

I agree with you, so of course your points are brilliant.

This problem goes way back. During the late 1960s, I formed an organization called UA Students of Objectivism. We followed the standard practice of calling ourselves "Students of Objectivism" instead of "Objectivists," because we were well aware of statements like the following, which Rand published in The Objectivist in June, 1968:

If students, supporters or friends of Objectivism wish to form local groups of their own—for such purposes as the study, discussion and dissemination of Objectivist ideas—they are welcome to do so. They can be of great value and help to the spread of Objectivism, and will earn my sympathetic interest and sincere appreciation—provided they do not attempt to act as spokesmen for Objectivism and do not associate or collaborate with Objectivism's avowed enemies.

We heard rumors that legal action had been taken by Henry Mark Holzer on Rand's behalf against organizations that advertised their members as "Objectivists" without Rand's authorization. Whether these rumors were true or not, I cannot say, but they highlight the point that Rand viewed "Objectivism" as a label for her particular ideas. I had a lot of respect for Rand, so I figured the least I could do was to respect her wishes in regard to the use of the names "Objectivism" and "Objectivist." I still feel the same way, so far as my personal use of these terms is concerned.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

(EDIT: Our posts crossed, so this one refers to No. 121.)

We don't really disagree and this is a fine point, but I do want to be understood.

Your quotes are correct, but not all-inclusive.

To be clear, I don't know of anyone who would prohibit Ayn Rand from calling her philosophy Objectivism--and attaching a specific meaning to that--or think it inappropriate she would do so. So nobody is trying to deny her that right.

The problem some people have (myself included) is in her--and the Don Quixote brigade hell-bent on defending her honor--trying to set a restriction on a linguistic habit that is common in practically all cultures. Open any dictionary and you will find more than one definition for virtually any term--even libertarianism. Some of the different definitions are closely related and others are not, but they are all different.

Rand basically tried to say to all of society, "You cannot use my word unless you use my definition."

I don't find that realistic and, frankly, it makes her come off as a control freak.

If the problem is legal, we have trademark laws for that sort of thing. To my knowledge, Objectivism is not trademarked. And I don't think it can be because Objectivism also refers to an earlier philosophy that has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. So should we call it Frege's Objectivism as opposed to Rand's Objectivism? I don't see the control freaks making that distinction often.

Whether people like it or not, the word Objectivism has more than one definition. And it will probably develop more different definitions as time goes on--even when referring to Rand's ideas.

Like I said, it's a quibble. But certain control freaks are so nasty (btw - I do not mean you in that designation), I like to keep this point clear.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George,

(EDIT: Our posts crossed, so this one refers to No. 121.)

We don't really disagree and this is a fine point, but I do want to be understood.

Your quotes are correct, but not all-inclusive.

To be clear, I don't know of anyone who would prohibit Ayn Rand from calling her philosophy Objectivism--and attaching a specific meaning to that--or think it inappropriate she would do so. So nobody is trying to deny her that right.

The problem some people have (myself included) is in her--and the Don Quixote brigade hell-bent on defending her honor--trying to set a restriction on a linguistic habit that is common in practically all cultures. Open any dictionary and you will find more than one definition for virtually any term--even libertarianism. Some of the different definitions are closely related and others are not, but they are all different.

Rand basically tried to say to all of society, "You cannot use my word unless you use my definition."

I don't find that realistic and, frankly, it makes her come off as a control freak.

If the problem is legal, we have trademark laws for that sort of thing. To my knowledge, Objectivism is not trademarked. And I don't think it can be because Objectivism also refers to an earlier philosophy that has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. So should we call it Frege's Objectivism as opposed to Rand's Objectivism? I don't see the control freaks making that distinction often.

Whether people like it or not, the word Objectivism has more than one definition. And it will probably develop more different definitions as time goes on--even when referring to Rand's ideas.

Like I said, it's a quibble. But certain control freaks are so nasty (btw - I do not mean you in that designation), I like to keep this point clear.

Michael

Again, I agree with you. I think Rand's effort to restrict "Objectivism" in the manner she did was unwise and ultimately counter-productive. It was also a bit quirky.

As you know, I have no sympathy for orthodox Objectivists who have attempted to fossilize Rand's ideas. Indeed, the vast majority of these Orthos are not warranted in calling themselves "Objectivists," because they never got Rand's sanction.

How the Orthos get around this problem is amusing. Their method has been to adopt an O'ist version of the "laying on of hands," based on the supposed ordination of Peikoff as Rand's intellectual heir. This ordination conveyed to Peikoff the authority to ordain and baptize other Objectivists, and so on.

Btw, I am fascinated by the Catholic version of this ritual -- and, no, I am not talking about laying hands on little boys. In theory, the priest who baptizes you or administers other sacraments has been touched (during ordination) by a bishop, who was touched by another bishop, who was touched by another bishop -- and so on, back in time, until the chain reaches St. Peter, the "rock" upon which Jesus built his church. There is something majestic in this notion of a religious tradition being passed from generation to generation via physical contact, but it doesn't quite work with atheists.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I had added the following statement to my earlier post, but it did not make it into your quote box in time, so here it is instead:

(After all, look at the time of the forum and imagine some of the grief I have had to deal with. )

Michael

EDIT: I just thought about it, and I opt to forgo the pleasure of receiving a "laying on of hands" from Peikoff. I prefer to evade.