ObjectivismOnline's Objectivism Wiki

[studiodekadent]

Rationalist Randroid Centr... I mean Objectivism Online, apparently has an Objectivism Wiki. Under their "Common Misconceptions About Objectivism" page, they attack the "Open System" argument;

Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand used for her philosophical achievement. As such, the term "Objectivism" may only be applied to the ideas by Rand or by those she explicitly endorsed. This is not to say that there are not other philosophical truths that rational thought can illuminate, but that passing these ideas as the work of Ayn Rand is misleading.

SOURCE: http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/Common_Misconceptions_about_Objectivism

Note that "Objectivism" is now being turned into a name for a system of ideas.

Let the refutations commence!

1) Objectivism Is Not Just A Name

Rand herself described Objectivism as a systematic philosophy, i.e. a system of ideas. Therefore, it cannot be merely a name.

2) Definition By Non-Essentials

The essential feature of a philosophy is that philosophy's content, rather than the philosopher that originated the content.

If we accept the Objectivism Online definition of Objectivism as "the name Ayn Rand used for her philosophical achievement" then we'd have to deal with the following hypothetical; suppose someone who had no previous knowledge of Ayn Rand but had studied philosophy found themselves making a case for Aristotelian Realism and Atheism in metaphysics (arguing that Existence, Identity and Consciousness were undeniable concepts), Direct Realism and Empirical Conceptualism in epistemology, argued that moral concepts develop because beings with free will need to actively make a choice to sustain their own lives and that it was proper for individuals to act in their own rational self-interest, explicitly rejected Comtean altruism and criticized it as misanthropic and rejected the broader idea that individuals need to serve something greater than themselves, and then finally endorsed a political order based upon an ultraminimal State confined to the defense and enforcement of the Classical Liberal conception of Individual Rights.

If such a person were to emerge, we could not call them an "Objectivist" under Objectivism Online's definition. Why? Because according to OO, "Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand used for her philosophical achievement." As such, if someone else makes a philosophical achievement which agrees with, reinforces and/or basically is the same as what Ayn Rand said, it is not Objectivism because it isn't Ayn Rand's philosophical achievement.

Now, we could (correctly, in my view) argue that any extention of what Rand argued isn't essential to Objectivism. But it still would be Objectivist thought.

3) Inconsistent Scope Of Definitions

Objectivists can only define Objectivism as "Ayn Rand's philosophical achievement" if they start defining "Kantianism" as "Immanuel Kant's philosophy." So, when will OO stop calling Marxism, Fascism and Postmodernism "Kantian?" The answer is never, even if all three of these ideologies/schools of thought substantially modify, extend and revise Kantian ideas.

Many Enlightenment philosophers were not directly influenced by Aristotle. However, OO will still call the Enlightenment philosophers "Aristotelian." This is possibly true if we use the term to refer to a broad tendency within philosophy rather than a specific philosophical system, but even still the point remains that the OO crowd is at the very least playing double standards when they start classifying people.

4) Epistemic Hypocrisy

The OO definition of "Objectivism" creates a situation where, if Rand is ever to be proven wrong on any specific issue, an Objectivist is forced to abandon Objectivism in order to practice Objectivism. Objectivism demands that an individual be rational, i.e. volitionally adhering to the facts of reality. If the facts of reality were, on any issue, to conflict with Rand, an Objectivist would have to immediately disagree with Rand on the issue. Because OO defines "Objectivism" in terms of what Ayn Rand argued, this would mean that, in the event of Rand being proven wrong on anything, an Objectivist would have to stop being an Objectivist in order to be an Objectivist. And to remain an Objectivist would be non-Objectivist. So much for "A is A."

5) Mischaracterizing The Open System

OO's definition mischaracterizes the Open System argument. Open System Objectivism is simply arguing that "Objectivism" is defined by a core set of essential ideas (like any other philosophical system) and that someone can disagree with other Objectivists, including Ayn Rand, if they can defend their disagreement by reference to the essential ideas.

It is also an argument that, because Objectivism is an empiricist philosophy (which supports the proposition that concepts are open-ended and knowledge is contextual), if Rand ever made mistakes they can be corrected by Objectivists.

6) Sneaking In Open System Through The Back Door

I speculate that enough orthodox Objectivists know about point 4. Thus, in order to insulate their status as True Objectivists from the paradox pointed out in point 4, they start to bring in subtle caveats. For instance, the quoted definition specifically said "philosophical achievement." When one brings up Rand's errors in issues of, say, sexuality and gender roles, said Randroid will instantly say they weren't philosophical issues.

In other words they will tacitly accept that there IS a distinction between the essential and non-essential issues and that divergence on non-essentials is okay.

It is also telling that they draw a distinction between "Objectivism" and "rational thought" (i.e. they accept that Ayn Rand didn't discover All That Is True and that rational approaches that aren't exclusively Randian have value).

In other words, they reduce the Open System and Closed System debate to a debate over a name.

Now, lets look back at The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand and the events that ended up creating the Institute for Objectivist Studies (now TAS/TOC). It was, originally, a difference of philosophical principle that mattered; the nature of objectivity (with Kelley being accused of Subjectivism and Piekoff being counter-accused of Intrinsicism). Now, apparently, its a matter of nomenclature.

So, we are left with one question.

Why?

Why define "Objectivism" as "Ayn Rand's Philosophy" rather than by its essential ideas (with, naturally, a mention of the first systematic proponent of them)?

Again, the answer can be found in Contested Legacy.

Objectivism is anti-tribalist, but individual Objectivists have not always been the most consistent practicioners of their philosophy. Instead, they have acted like a tribe or a pack.

As Rand argued, tribalism is a manifestation of an anti-conceptual mentality - a consciousness that cannot handle abstractions properly. As such, persons with this mentality cannot truly grasp loyalty to shared ideals and principles or brotherhood of shared values. Ideals and Principles and Values cannot be understood as abstract ideas by this mentality, so instead they treat specific people as if these specific people were these abstract ideas.

In a way, they treat people like characters in Rand's novels. Rand's characters were, consciously, reifications of ideals and an attack on the character thus constituted an attack on the ideal.

Thus, ObjectivismOnline and its Objectivism Wiki identifies Objectivism with Ayn Rand specifically. Not with ideas, but with a specific person. They, just like the most venomous and hate-spewing defamers of Objectivism, are incapable of separating the philosophy from the philosopher and thus treat attacks on the philosopher as attacks on the philosophy. Hence ObjectivismOnline's policy that one can be banned from the forum for pointing out specific defects in Ayn Rand's character.

I wish to suggest that the Objectivist Living community might be interested in starting a Wiki dedicated to Open-System Objectivism. It would be a wonderful counter to this Shrine Of The Perfection Of The Majesty Of Ayn Rand (Peace Be Upon Her) created by ObjectivismOnline.

[Guyau]

Andrew,

Do you agree with the Objectivism Online Wiki that if one is not an atheist, then one is not an Objectivist? Do you agree that if one is an anarchist, one is not an Objectivist? I agree with those, on account of the salient Objectivist positions they noted.

I’m in agreement with Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism on those two issues. Still, I’m not an Objectivist. I’m comfortable not being an Objectivist (*), simply having a lot of important philosophy in common with that one (e.g.).

Related – A, B

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS

A fond memory came back to me. I had a friendly acquaintance in the '70's whose name was John Cody. He was a classics professor at Northwestern. He was a libertarian anarchist. If asked in private or in public interview if he was an Objectivist, he would say No and underscore that he squarely disagreed with Rand's political theory. Though they are scarce at posting sites, I suspect there are many reflective persons yet today who are just fine with being not Objectivist and who are accurate in their knowledge and representation of Rand's philosophy and have a lot in common with it.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

Do you agree with the Objectivism Online Wiki that if one is not an atheist, then one is not an Objectivist? Do you agree that if one is an anarchist, one is not an Objectivist? I agree with those, on account of the salient Objectivist positions they noted.

I'm tempted to agree that one cannot be an Objectivist without being an atheist. Certainly, I'd argue you have to deny the existence of any deity described in a matter similar to that of the Abrahamic Monotheisms (i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, creator ex nihilo, etc), and you'd have to reject any beliefs based upon faith.

However, speaking theoretically, if some Objectivist I knew were to have some sort of spiritual experience which, afterwards (and after plenty of careful consideration), they chalked up to a logically-consistent spiritual entity of sorts and began practicing a form of spirituality appropriate to that experience... and yet they still believed in a metaphysically objective world that can be understood with reason (etc etc.) I'd certainly be very hesitant to claim they are absolutely NOT an Objectivist.

Again, I'm speaking tentatively here. It would depend on the specifics of the situation, of course.

Now, as to Anarchism, I admit I think it IS possible for someone to be both an Objectivist and a Free-Market Anarchist. For one, Rand's own political position was the Ultraminimal Statism of Robert Nozick; she opposed coercive taxation. Most actual Objectivists, however, are Minarchists who accept coercive taxation as necessary, so if divergence in that direction is okay I don't see what makes Free Market Anarchism 'worse.'

I admit I'm biased here, I have learned a lot from (and have much respect for) Free Market Anarchism. I'd probably say I'm sympathetic to it. I think in the ideal world, after the Randian Philosophical Revolution, we'd be able to move to a Free Market Anarchist society. However, I think in today's world (taking the moral character of people in general as 'fixed') I think the best we can do is Hayekian Minarchism.

[Kat]

Thanks for the suggestion of a Wiki on OL, but at this moment, I'm afraid that one is a non-starter. It sounds too much like work and frankly, I don't know if we actually have enough qualified people here to pull it off or with interest in doing it. We also do not have the software to make it. I think a project like that is more suited for The Atlas Society.

As far as who is an Objectivist, in addition to religionists, collectivists, altruists, Marxists and anarchists, I would not consider someone who supports Obama to be anywhere in the ballpark. You don't have to quibble over the name but philosophically all these run counter to the core philosophy of Objectivism, even Open Objectivism IMHO.

Kat

[studiodekadent]

Thanks for the suggestion of a Wiki on OL, but at this moment, I'm afraid that one is a non-starter. It sounds too much like work and frankly, I don't know if we actually have enough qualified people here to pull it off or with interest in doing it. We also do not have the software to make it. I think a project like that is more suited for The Atlas Society.

Thank you for your reply. I completely understand. No problem.

[Kat]

I just took a look at OO's wiki and other than the mischaracterization of Open Objectivism, it looks OK to me.

Objectivism is an "open system" to revision and changes

Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand used for her philosophical achievement. As such, the term "Objectivism" may only be applied to the ideas by Rand or by those she explicitly endorsed. This is not to say that there are not other philosophical truths that rational thought can illuminate, but that passing these ideas as the work of Ayn Rand is misleading. Leonard Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value", directly addresses this issue.

No, you can't change what Ayn Rand said or what she endorsed during her lifetime, but I would not characterize Objectivism as only that. I hope Objectivism doesn't end when Leonard Peikoff kicks it. It is a living philosophy and individuals apply it to their own lives as it suits them. People are free to read and write about it under their own names and it not be taken as the word of Ayn Rand, but as their interpretation of Objectivism. Every individual interprets in their own way and we are not going to rename it every time.

[BaalChatzaf]

I just took a look at OO's wiki and other than the mischaracterization of Open Objectivism, it looks OK to me.

Objectivism is an "open system" to revision and changes

Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand used for her philosophical achievement. As such, the term "Objectivism" may only be applied to the ideas by Rand or by those she explicitly endorsed. This is not to say that there are not other philosophical truths that rational thought can illuminate, but that passing these ideas as the work of Ayn Rand is misleading. Leonard Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value", directly addresses this issue.

No, you can't change what Ayn Rand said or what she endorsed during her lifetime, but I would not characterize Objectivism as only that. I hope Objectivism doesn't end when Leonard Peikoff kicks it. It is a living philosophy and individuals apply it to their own lives as it suits them. People are free to read and write about it under their own names and it not be taken as the word of Ayn Rand, but as their interpretation of Objectivism. Every individual interprets in their own way and we are not going to rename it every time.

Call the follow on Neo-Objectivism.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Objectivism as Rand defined it is a religion. So I don't know why anyone would want to be called an Objectivist. Let them have their religious symbols, they've certainly earned them.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I'm tempted to agree that one cannot be an Objectivist without being an atheist. Certainly, I'd argue you have to deny the existence of any deity described in a matter similar to that of the Abrahamic Monotheisms (i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, creator ex nihilo, etc), and you'd have to reject any beliefs based upon faith.

Let's be careful here, for we would not say one cannot be a scientist without being an atheist.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Let's be careful here, for we would not say one cannot be a scientist without being an atheist.

--Brant

Consider the case of Isaac Newton. Was he a scientist? Indeed he was, and he was also a God Freak.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

I'm tempted to agree that one cannot be an Objectivist without being an atheist. Certainly, I'd argue you have to deny the existence of any deity described in a matter similar to that of the Abrahamic Monotheisms (i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, creator ex nihilo, etc), and you'd have to reject any beliefs based upon faith.

Let's be careful here, for we would not say one cannot be a scientist without being an atheist.

--Brant

It isn't a prerequisite for a scientist to be anything in particular - as we know many great ones were religious, some agnostic, a few, atheist.

Like anyone else, they're entitled to their mixed premises, or 'cognitive dissonance'.

Personal conviction and action should, however, be well-integrated if one calls oneself Objectivist. According to N. Branden - integrity is "congruence between what you know, what you profess, and what you do."

Ultimately, I agree with SDK's appraisal - that unless, or until, there is empirical evidence of any sort of spirituality, a Deity has to lie outside the realm of reality. To believe in him and practise Objectivism, simultaneously, must eventually lead to cognitive dissonance and increasing rationalizations.

[Xray]

I'm tempted to agree that one cannot be an Objectivist without being an atheist. Certainly, I'd argue you have to deny the existence of any deity described in a matter similar to that of the Abrahamic Monotheisms (i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, creator ex nihilo, etc), and you'd have to reject any beliefs based upon faith.

Let's be careful here, for we would not say one cannot be a scientist without being an atheist.

--Brant

But as opposed to a scientist's personal belief (or non-belief) in the supernatural, Ayn Rand spoke as a philosopher who was clear as a bell about atheism being one of the pillars her philosophy Objectivism rests on.

Rand even went as far as asserting verbatim: "no supernatural dimension exists" (TF, p. ix).

So in case a person claims to be an Objectivist and a believer in the supernatural, this is a contradiction in terms because what these terms stand for is incompatible.

Claiming to be both an Objectivist and to believe in the supernatural is like attributing to A characteristics of non-A. There is no place in Objectivism for any kind of belief in the supernatural.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whoever believes that Objectivism is a closed system and they can impose that meaning on the world deserves what they get.

What's worse, if such a thing were possible in existence, it would condemn Objectivism over the long haul as a viable philosophy due to some of the fundamental human nature errors Rand committed (tabula rasa, theory of sex, etc.). People would have to accept as truth something they know is flat-out wrong along with the good stuff in order to practice Objectivism. That would kill it for most people.

If control-freak kinds wish to group together and preach that they are the sole caretakers of the one true way and guardians of Ayn Rand's sacred honor, I say let them. I have no use for them and they certainly have no use for me.

My thing is for each person to use his mind to his honest best--wherever that takes him. If he starts with Objectivism, grows to love it and cannot bear to see it die from its flaws, I say let him present his corrections to the world. Nobody I know of--friend or foe--will ever confuse his writing with Rand's.

There is one thing that is certain in this whole silly debate. There is no Objectivist authority who has--or who will be able to have--any kind of efficacy on controlling what people say or write or claim. There is no Objectivist authority who can grant or remove the title of "Objectivst" on any person--ever.

Thank goodness, too. Look at the constant mess the fundies make.

What's worse, for all the fundy blather about keeping Objectivism pure, these are people who should talk. Look at what ARI-sanctioned folks do to Rand's own unpublished stuff. They change it to death depending on what is in their own heads, and then make it hard to see the difference between Rand's original words and their meddling.

And it gets even worse. Those farther down in the fundy pecking order who are actively concerned about whether Objectivism is open or closed swallow all this swill whole without complaint and even defend it. (slurp... slurp... slurp...)

I can't take any of that seriously and I generally don't like people who do. I definitely don't like control freaks who scapegoat good productive people. Most of the hardcore self-appointed guardians of the sanctity of pure Objectivism I have seen are precisely this kind of person.

May they live long, in good health and prosper. But far away from me.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'm tempted to agree that one cannot be an Objectivist without being an atheist. Certainly, I'd argue you have to deny the existence of any deity described in a matter similar to that of the Abrahamic Monotheisms (i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, creator ex nihilo, etc), and you'd have to reject any beliefs based upon faith.

Let's be careful here, for we would not say one cannot be a scientist without being an atheist.

--Brant

But as opposed to a scientist's personal belief (or non-belief) in the supernatural, Ayn Rand spoke as a philosopher who was clear as a bell about atheism being one of the pillars her philosophy Objectivism rests on.

Rand even went as far as asserting verbatim: "no supernatural dimension exists" (TF, p. ix).

So in case a person claims to be an Objectivist and a believer in the supernatural, this is is contradiction in terms because what these terms stand for is incompatible.

Claiming to be both an Objectivist and to believe in the supernatural is like attributing to A characteristics of non-A. There is no place in Objectivism for any kind of belief in the supernatural.

You're simply confusing Objectivism, the philosophy of AR with Objectivism the philosophy of Objectivism. The first belongs to AR the second with people trying to make sense of things using reason. People using reason can compartmentalize God in one compartment and reason in the other. The real problem is mixing up the compartments and trying to keep God. They don't integrate. That doesn't mean non-contemplation, just non-integration absent heretofore evidence.

Atheism is not any pillar of Objectivism. That's like saying atheism is a pillar of reason. When someone says I believe in God, the Objectivist says what is your evidence and what (are) is your reason(s). If the answer is "faith," the Objectivist says faith has nothing to do with Objectivism for it is a philosophy of reason. Even here the pillar is reason; lack of faith doesn't support anything. The best that can be said is not having faith helps prevent irrationality either in the entire person or in part of the person. Just as an Objectivist naturally enough lacks faith the absence of something is a zero, zip, nada, nothing. These four negatives because they are negatives can't support a positive.

--Brant

don't sweat God, just keep him in his God-box

Edited May 25, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[studiodekadent]

I'm tempted to agree that one cannot be an Objectivist without being an atheist. Certainly, I'd argue you have to deny the existence of any deity described in a matter similar to that of the Abrahamic Monotheisms (i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, creator ex nihilo, etc), and you'd have to reject any beliefs based upon faith.

Let's be careful here, for we would not say one cannot be a scientist without being an atheist.

--Brant

"Scientist" is a vocation and a methodology, not a belief system per se. As Brant said, many people compartmentalize, so yes, one CAN be a scientist and believe in God (see Francis Collins for an example).

Now, as to Objectivism, I think its important to recognize that by "supernatural" Rand meant anything which exists beyond the confines of Identity/Casuality/Non-Contradiction/etc. I agree, if someone believes in a belief system which compels them to accept the existence of things that aren't subject to Identity/Causality/Non-Contradiction/etc, then they wouldn't be an Objectivist.

But it is at least theoretically possible that someone could believe in a kind of cosmology which DOES accept the law of identity etc etc. I for one have a friend who is a Wiccan, but said friend's beliefs (as said friend has explained them to me) all accept the law of identity; i.e. everything including 'magick' has a specific nature and operates in a specific way that is fixed. This friend of mine is not an Objectivist although said friend clearly has much common ground with Objectivism.

The point I am making is that I would not automatically declare someone with a 'spiritual' belief system who otherwise agreed with the essentials of Objectivism a non-Objectivist unless their belief system was 1) grasped through non-empirical means (including faith) or 2) defied the laws of logic.

[william.scherk]

All the various orthodox exclusion rules for proper Objectivism seem marred by an unexpressed assumption that Objectivism is beyond criticism. It is the bright electric line beyond which all is deviation from the true, the plumb and the perfect. This is what separates out Binswangers and Peikoffs and Hsiehs. They do not deviate.

What the hardcore Objectivists do is patrol a deviation line: on one side anathema, and the other side purity. In its most grotesque appearances this deviation patrol seems cultish and creepy to me. The totalism and the rectitude.

I think only those who strictly hew to Rand's philosophy in toto can happily call themselves Objectivists. All others who call themselves Objectivists will have unhappy moments defending their use of the name and definition from misunderstanding. I say drop the label entirely and leave it to the exclusionists. If the Hsieh wing considers the Speicher wing vile deviationists and dishonourers of Him, then fuck them all.

If the Hsiehkovian party wants to keep the name, no edict or lawsuit or peer pressure or fatwa can stop people from calling themselves Objectivists, but if the purity of the term is so danged important, and the exclusion criteria are so ferocious, I figure every single person who has been told 'you are not [a real, proper] Objectivist' should immediately agree and move on with relief.

How do you want to be remembered: as being objective, as having a reasoning, objective mind -- or as being an Objectivist?

Edited May 26, 2011 by william.scherk

[studiodekadent]

All the various orthodox exclusion rules for proper Objectivism seem marred by an unexpressed assumption that Objectivism is beyond criticism. It is the bright electric line beyond which all is deviation from the true, the plumb and the perfect. This is what separates out Binswangers and Peikoffs and Hsiehs. They do not deviate.

What the hardcore Objectivists do is patrol a deviation line: on one side anathema, and the other side purity. In its most grotesque appearances this deviation patrol seems cultish and creepy to me. The totalism and the rectitude.

I think only those who strictly hew to Rand's philosophy in toto can happily call themselves Objectivists. All others who call themselves Objectivists will have unhappy moments defending their use of the name and definition from misunderstanding. I say drop the label entirely and leave it to the exclusionists. If the Hsieh wing considers the Speicher wing vile deviationists and dishonourers of Him, then fuck them all.

If the Hsiehkovian party wants to keep the name, no edict or lawsuit or peer pressure or fatwa can stop people from calling themselves Objectivists, but if the purity of the term is so danged important, and the exclusion criteria are so ferocious, I figure every single person who has been told 'you are not [a real, proper] Objectivist' should immediately agree and move on with relief.

How do you want to be remembered: as being objective, as having a reasoning, objective mind -- or as being an Objectivist?

William,

I agree that the orthodoxy are cultists, however I don't agree we should surrender the term "Objectivist" to the orthodoxy.

That treats "Objectivist" as a term akin to one for religious affiliation as opposed to a term denoting a philosophical system. It also represents letting the enemy win.

[Greybird]

All the various orthodox exclusion rules for proper Objectivism seem marred by an unexpressed assumption that Objectivism is beyond criticism. [...]

Although that's widespread on its own, the worse assumptions are far deeper than that, far more misleading, far more destructive, and are to be laid wholly at Rand's own feet.

These lie in assuming that "Objectivism," as such, makes genuine sense as a proper noun, and that Rand's talking about "my philosophy" has a coherent referent. As I've pointed out on many occasions, these are both fallacies.

When the proper noun at the root of the controversy is deficient, the adjectives coming from it are deficient, and nothing good will come from wielding them — on any side.

I say drop the label entirely and leave it to the exclusionists. [...]

The only sane procedure. It won't be followed to any substantial degree, though, until nobody has a vested personal interest in blindly defending — or making apologetics for — Rand herself.

Or, more precisely, when the state of affairs comes about that my friend Rob Morse predicted in 1978, his emphasis: "Nobody will be sane about this until Ayn Rand, and everyone who has ever known her personally, is dead." Which still is not yet the case.

How do you want to be remembered: as being objective, as having a reasoning, objective mind — or as being an Objectivist?

That's the heart of the matter. But until the proper noun and adjective vanish from discourse, few will realize this. Such is the reifying, misleading, pernicious power of an "-ism," any "-ism," even one coined by Rand's own best intentions.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Greybird

[Brant Gaede]

All the various orthodox exclusion rules for proper Objectivism seem marred by an unexpressed assumption that Objectivism is beyond criticism. It is the bright electric line beyond which all is deviation from the true, the plumb and the perfect. This is what separates out Binswangers and Peikoffs and Hsiehs. They do not deviate.

What the hardcore Objectivists do is patrol a deviation line: on one side anathema, and the other side purity. In its most grotesque appearances this deviation patrol seems cultish and creepy to me. The totalism and the rectitude.

I think only those who strictly hew to Rand's philosophy in toto can happily call themselves Objectivists. All others who call themselves Objectivists will have unhappy moments defending their use of the name and definition from misunderstanding. I say drop the label entirely and leave it to the exclusionists. If the Hsieh wing considers the Speicher wing vile deviationists and dishonourers of Him, then fuck them all.

If the Hsiehkovian party wants to keep the name, no edict or lawsuit or peer pressure or fatwa can stop people from calling themselves Objectivists, but if the purity of the term is so danged important, and the exclusion criteria are so ferocious, I figure every single person who has been told 'you are not [a real, proper] Objectivist' should immediately agree and move on with relief.

How do you want to be remembered: as being objective, as having a reasoning, objective mind -- or as being an Objectivist?

I want to be remembered as the guy who saved the world--and an Objectivist. My kind of Objectivist. I could care less about the ortho-guys. I'll just keep telling it like I am, Sam, thank you, Ma'am. I should use the lower-case "O" I suppose, but I like the upper case. And William, if you ain't an Objectivist don't sweat my Objectivism. If you are an Objectivist, tell us about it. (Reminds me of a Billy Joel song,)

--Brant

[Starbuckle]

Hmmm... so according to Greybird's philosophy, one can't have a philosophy? Velly intellesting....

Edited May 26, 2011 by Starbuckle

[Guyau]

.

Steve, thanks for including the psychological point from Rob Morse. I had not known of his thesis, which was long before I also realized that shadow factor.* - *

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Andrew, I don’t see anything wrong or strange with the quote you show from Objectivism Online. Not every philosopher who had a system of ideas had a name for it. I could be mistaken, but I don’t recall Spinoza having a name for his philosophy. Then too, some philosophers who were against system, such as Peirce, did select a name for their philosophy. I see nothing wrong with selecting a name for one’s system of ideas, and was done by Kant and by Rand. And nothing wrong with specifying the texts or tapes that you the author of the system know to be true representations.*

As you know, Rand’s book For the New Intellectual (1961) collects philosophical excerpts from her novels and precedes them with the title essay. In the Preface, she writes: “For reasons which are made clear in the following pages, the name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism.” Nothing wrong or strange about that.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[studiodekadent]

Andrew, I don’t see anything wrong or strange with the quote you show from Objectivism Online. Not every philosopher who had a system of ideas had a name for it. I could be mistaken, but I don’t recall Spinoza having a name for his philosophy. Then too, some philosophers who were against system, such as Peirce, did select a name for their philosophy. I see nothing wrong with selecting a name for one’s system of ideas, and was done by Kant and by Rand. And nothing wrong with specifying the texts or tapes that you the author of the system know to be true representations.

Stephen,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kant named his system Transcendental Idealism right? (I think in academic circles the school of philosophy he founded is called "German Idealism" rather than "Transcendental Idealism" but I'm speaking from my experience which may not be universal).

The fact is that MANY people that agree with Kant's metaphysics and epistemology strongly disagree with Kant on many other areas. Neitzsche, Hegel, Fichte, and even Foucault were all in agreement with Kant's basic Noumena-Phenomena split all took these ideas in radically different directions (and Marx took Hegel in another radically different direction etc., and Foucault isn't considered a German Idealist).

I have no problem with labelling systems of ideas, obviously. But Kant didn't demand a right to be the sole judge of who was and who wasn't a Transcendental Idealist/German Idealist (if he did, his ideas may have been less useful to statists). Kant didn't have pretentious self-proclaimed intellectual heirs that demanded the right to be the final authority on intellectual disagreements amongst German Idealists.

[sjw]

I say drop the label entirely and leave it to the exclusionists. [...]

The only sane procedure. It won't be followed to any substantial degree, though, until nobody has a vested personal interest in blindly defending — or making apologetics for — Rand herself.

Yep.

I think when one comes from the insanity that is this culture, particularly from a religious background, or a background of being fresh out of high school, and then reads Rand for the first time, one naturally thinks they are an Objectivist. The contrast between the general cultish insanity in our culture and Objectivism is too stark. Objectivism comes off looking so reasonable by comparison that the amount of unreasonableness within it is difficult to discern.

Since most people are more into Rand's fiction than into philosophy as such, they'll never stop calling themselves Objectivists, but perhaps what we should take them to mean is that they are fans (sometimes rabid fans) of Ayn Rand.

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

F**k 'em.

If they had white church buses and machine guns, we'd all be going to summer school.

rde

Today's special phrase is "Piss off."

[Rich Engle]

Yeah, that is really just the same old same old. Tedious, man.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Rich Engle