Shifting perspective on this, from a certain view everything about this seems beneath a reality based philosophy, and people of action who hold it.
I cannot imagine the heroes of Rand's books having a serious inquiry into what to call what they believe, or what to call people who hold those beliefs, and just when and where a belief or a person should be called something different.
On the one hand one might say that it's akin to categorization, conceptualization, genus and differentia and all that sort of thing.... it's just what philosophers do from time to time.
But the protagonists of Rand, as most human beings, would not have bothered with the labelling, affiliation, or marketing, of their ideas or any kind of "ownership" or "membership" worries... after all people of action are not metaphysically vulnerable to those types of qualms... who or what is in or outside of some club. There is only noncontradictory identification and action.
We have the smell here of a sort of collectivism and a flavor of tribalism of ideas, which tribe does this idea belong to (as if ideas AS SUCH had owners) and which tribe are you a part of, publically affiliated with, and defined by?
I get the impression Biddle has it right, and that in his mind he affords this the level of importance and significance it deserves...
Biddle and Hicks Debate Open versus Closed Objectivism
in Neil Parille's Blog
A blog by Neil Parille in General
Posted
Shifting perspective on this, from a certain view everything about this seems beneath a reality based philosophy, and people of action who hold it.
I cannot imagine the heroes of Rand's books having a serious inquiry into what to call what they believe, or what to call people who hold those beliefs, and just when and where a belief or a person should be called something different.
On the one hand one might say that it's akin to categorization, conceptualization, genus and differentia and all that sort of thing.... it's just what philosophers do from time to time.
But the protagonists of Rand, as most human beings, would not have bothered with the labelling, affiliation, or marketing, of their ideas or any kind of "ownership" or "membership" worries... after all people of action are not metaphysically vulnerable to those types of qualms... who or what is in or outside of some club. There is only noncontradictory identification and action.
We have the smell here of a sort of collectivism and a flavor of tribalism of ideas, which tribe does this idea belong to (as if ideas AS SUCH had owners) and which tribe are you a part of, publically affiliated with, and defined by?
I get the impression Biddle has it right, and that in his mind he affords this the level of importance and significance it deserves...
but feels he has to talk about it.