The best of questions

[UncleJim]

Here is Rand's quote as given on the ARI FAQ page:

"I urge the readers to use their own judgment as to whether a particular article is or is not consonant with Objectivist principles. Remember, it is a fundamental tenet of Objectivism that one must not accept ideas on faith.

"If you wonder why I am so particular about protecting the integrity of the term 'Objectivism,' my reason is that 'Objectivism' is the name I have given to my philosophy—therefore, anyone using that name for some philosophical hodgepodge of his own, without my knowledge or consent, is guilty of the fraudulent presumption of trying to put thoughts into my brain (or of trying to pass his thinking off as mine—an attempt which fails, for obvious reasons). I chose the name 'Objectivism' at a time when my philosophy was beginning to be known and some people were starting to call themselves 'Randists.' I am much too conceited to allow such a use of my name …

"What is the proper policy on this issue? If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with—and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own."

[Ayn Rand, "To the Readers of The Objectivist Forum," The Objectivist Forum, Vol. 1, No. 1]

I obviously use another definition of the term "Objectivist" than Rand did here. And I am quite comfortable with the meaning I use, since I learned English way before I discovered Rand.

If one uses Rand's own standard stated above, being an Objectivist would mean somehow crawling into her brain and agreeing with every thought found in there, which is impossible, or else receiving her manifest consent to call oneself an Objectivist. Since she is dead, that is not possible any longer. So by her own declaration, if she did not ordain the person, he is not entitled to call himself an Objectivist (on penalty of "fraud"). That would mean no one after her death—almost no one at all nowadays.

This would mean that no one at ARI except Peikoff is entitled to call himself an Objectivist. They would have to present signed or published statements by Rand to prove that she gave her consent for them to call themselves Objectivists and I can't think of anyone who has that except Peikoff (at the beginning of The Ominous Parallels).

Well, there are those who wrote articles for The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist and Who Is Ayn Rand? (and pre-break lectures). Her later statements affirmed that the works contained in those publications and lectures are official Objectivism, but in those statements, she did not call the people who wrote them "Objectivists."

I use the term "Objectivist" in the same way someone calls himself an "Existentialist" or "Kantian" or "Marxist," which means a person interested in, and highly influenced by, the ideas found in the bodies of thought designated by those words. Built into this concept is that fact that individuals exist and they are different from one another, thus there will be some differences of ideas between the author and the person interested/influenced.

I would suggest that there be some kind of term set for Rand-ordained Objectivist and non-Rand-ordained Objectivist, but there are so few of the first (there is only one I know of) that it is not really necessary for general understanding.

Michael

Nicely done.

Objectivism establishes who falls under its umbrella. In my view; Objectivism says that properly functioning human-beings are functioning as Objectivism observes them to be functioning. In other words: The actions of properly functioning human beings came prior to the observation of them which eventually ended in the philosophy of Objectivism as documented by Ayn Rand.

This may not be Ayn Rand's intent. But ... So what? If I am acting objectively; then, I am acting in accordance with the principles of Objectivism. Whether I know that or not, is not (in my view), a criteria as to whether or not I'm an Objectivist. She would like me to accept the principle that I am somehow assuming her identity when I act or think as an Objectivist would act or think in any given situation.

That is her privilege. I disagree. People were doing that a long time before she documented how properly functioning persons act and think.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Uncle Jim,

I have difficulty with phrases like "Objectivism establishes..." or "Objectivism says..."

They sound good until I start thinking about them, but then I come up against a problem.

I have to detect what the author of a statement like that means by "Objectivism." This means many different things to many different people.

I merely consider it to be a body of thought. It was given initial form in the works of Ayn Rand and those she designated. Those works definitely represent a "closed system" because she died and could not designate anything else. They are a closed system of works. But they do not constitute a closed body of thought.

A closed body of thought is practically a contradiction by definition if reality as the arbiter is one of the principles. There is a term for a closed body of thought that precludes correction by reality, though. It is called dogma.

To some people, Objectivism is dogma. When these people say "Objectivism says...," I start looking for someone else to talk to.

Michael

[UncleJim]

Uncle Jim,

I have difficulty with phrases like "Objectivism establishes..." or "Objectivism says..."

They sound good until I start thinking about them, but then I come up against a problem.

I have to detect what the author of a statement like that means by "Objectivism." This means many different things to many different people.

I merely consider it to be a body of thought. It was given initial form in the works of Ayn Rand and those she designated. Those works definitely represent a "closed system" because she died and could not designate anything else. They are a closed system of works. But they do not constitute a closed body of thought.

A closed body of thought is practically a contradiction by definition if reality as the arbiter is one of the principles. There is a term for a closed body of thought that precludes correction by reality, though. It is called dogma.

To some people, Objectivism is dogma. When these people say "Objectivism says...," I start looking for someone else to talk to.

Michael

I see your point and ageee with it.

To understand "Objectivism says..." One must fully understand what Objectivism is. And yes that can present a problem given the current state of the organization charged with protecting its integrity.

[tjohnson]

If I understand Jim correctly one could be an Objectivist without knowing any Objectivist principles simply by virtue of the fact that they act like Objectivists are supposed to act. Have I got this right?

[sjw]

I disagree with you that respect is even an issue in using definitions. Imagine the hell dictionary publishers would have to go through if this were the case.

It's obvious that there'd be no issue since we're talking about capital-O "Objectivism"--a proper name. You just want to keep using the name in spite of the good reasons not to so you're inventing absurd counter-reasons.

The English language permits more than one definition per word, and I know of no place other than registered trademarks where a word is exclusive property.

What a load of nonsense. The issue isn't about "exclusive property". I'm not talking about dragging anyone to jail. I'm talking about distinguishing things that are different. And in fact, the proper usage of English goes exactly against what you are saying: we don't use the same word to refer to different things when those different things are part of the same context. On the contrary, we typically use the same word in exactly the opposite scenario: when the contexts are different enough that there's no chance for misunderstanding of what the referent is.

You are so wildly off base here that there's got to be an underlying reason. Maybe it's that if you accepted my arguments, you'd have to change the name of your site?

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I would be happy to use lower-case "o" for "objectivist," but that designates a school of philosophy that existed waaaaaaaaaaaaaay before Rand that is at odds with Objectivism. Rand used capital "O" initially to separate it from the lower case body of ideas. All this is in the literature.

Anyway, there is no such thing as ownership of a body of ideas. There is only ownership of how they are presented.

Your observations about me, what I think and want and so forth, are simply wrong. You have no mind-reading abilities I have seen so far. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have, though. I suggest asking before affirming you know the contents of another's brain, but you are free to do as you choose.

Also, I stand by my definition of Objectivist. You are free to accept it or not, but what I stated is what I mean.

Your statement: "...we don't use the same word to refer to different things when those different things are part of the same context..." is wrong. I can give you several examples of Rand herself doing this. Here is one. Often she refered to "morality" as a division of philosophy and used the phrase the morality of altruism. In the same breath she claimed altruism is immoral. Two very different meanings in the same context. There are many others.

Michael

[UncleJim]

If I understand Jim correctly one could be an Objectivist without knowing any Objectivist principles simply by virtue of the fact that they act like Objectivists are supposed to act. Have I got this right?

That sums it up.

The problem is they may not be able to hold an intelligent conversation on the issue. As a matter of fact they are likely to deny that Objectivism ought to be applied to them because they actually believe something else is in control of how they act.

I really hate it when that happens.

[sjw]

I would be happy to use lower-case "o" for "objectivist," but that designates a school of philosophy that existed waaaaaaaaaaaaaay before Rand that is at odds with Objectivism. Rand used capital "O" initially to separate it from the lower case body of ideas. All this is in the literature.

It's bizarre to worry that people will be confused about what you're referring to when you're the one promoting the use of one word to mean multiple things in the same context.

Anyway, there is no such thing as ownership of a body of ideas. There is only ownership of how they are presented.

You ignored what I just said on this point, and on top of that you're ignoring the existence of patents...

Your statement: "...we don't use the same word to refer to different things when those different things are part of the same context..." is wrong. I can give you several examples of Rand herself doing this. Here is one. Often she refered to "morality" as a division of philosophy and used the phrase the morality of altruism. In the same breath she claimed altruism is immoral. Two very different meanings in the same context. There are many others.

Your example just proves that you're the one who's wrong: from the context you could always tell which morality she was referring to, on the other hand it is hard to tell what a self-proclaimed "Objectivist" means by the term unless you have the chance to ask him. Jim's view of calling any sane person an Objectivist is an interesting tack but that only muddies the issue even further.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

All anyone needs to do is read OL to see where I am at.

I have stated clearly that I am not out to save the world from any orgies of anything, nor do I consider myself as an Objectivist preacher or leader. All anyone needs to do is look at the posting guidelines.

1. Objectivist Living is a community of people with shared interests, people who are mainly interested in discussing Objectivism from all aspects (including checking basic premises from time to time), the Brandens, fine arts and creating works. Members also present articles and links to their own activities and items they find interesting to share. Thus the tenor is slanted toward understanding, discussion and sometimes education, not preaching or conversion.

This isn't rocket science and I will not change one bit because I am not only right, I am fully within my rights. You are, of course, free to protest my decision.

It's bizarre to worry that people will be confused about what you're referring to when you're the one promoting the use of one word to mean multiple things in the same context.

Using that criterion, the vast majority of English writing (and I mean most all of it) must appear bizarre to you. There is a reason dictionaries are so popular and varied.

Concept is one thing. Word is another. That's the way I learned it.

Michael

[sjw]

This isn't rocket science and I will not change one bit because I am not only right, I am fully within my rights. You are, of course, free to protest my decision.

- You're wrong

- I never said anything remotely implying you didn't have a right to persist in being wrong

- It's not important whether you in particular persist in being wrong since there's a horde of other people who are doing likewise

Shayne

Edited February 16, 2008 by sjw

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Thank you for your permission. I certainly appreciate it.

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne,

Thank you for your permission. I certainly appreciate it.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Jeez. I post something, get on an airplane, and it goes kablooey.

We're stuck being Objectivists whether orthodox, unorthodox, unintelligible, whatever. Rand's work was transformative, it changed all of us, and 'True Scotsman' debates are not as important as new creative work IMO. Back in a few days. Still living out of suitcases.

W.

[Barbara Branden]

Gentlemen, I am constantly appalled by the amount of pointless bickering that goes on -- particularly on Objectivist forums -- simply because people do not define their terms in anything like a reasonable manner. UncleJim, Shayne, George Donnelly, and Michael are at each other's throats because of a variety of illogical and/or internally inconsistent and/or vague definitions that make agreement impossible.

Here are the "definitions" of Objectivism so far in this thread:

Uncle Jim:

"You're not an Objectivist because you accept a specific principle. You're an Objectivist by fact of the way you act. When you're actions address the requirements of your specific kind of existence; then, that means you are acting objectively; i.e., you're an Objectivist."

And: "A properly functioning human-being is, by definition, functioning objectively. He is therefore an Objectivist."

And: "One could be an Objectivist without knowing any Objectivist principles simply by virtue of the fact that they act like Objectivists are supposed to act."

And: "Objectivism establishes who falls under its umbrella. In my view; Objectivism says that properly functioning human-beings are functioning as Objectivism observes them to be functioning. In other words: The actions of properly functioning human beings came prior to the observation of them which eventually ended in the philosophy of Objectivism as documented by Ayn Rand."

And: "If I am acting objectively; then, I am acting in accordance with the principles of Objectivism."

Uncle Jim, you insist that to be an Objectivist is not an issue of one's philosophical principles, but pertains only to actions. But what does it mean to act objectively? Without the guidance of principles, how am I to decide which actions "address the requirements of your specific kind of existence?" How am I to know when I am acting "as Objectivists are supposed to act?" How am I to know when I am being "a properly functioning human being?" If I vote for Hillary Clinton, am I an Objectivist? If I work for a living, rather than robbing banks, am I an Objectivist? If I abandon my children in order to help my neighbor when he's in trouble, am I an a Objectivist? If I let my emotions determine my actions, am I an Objectivist? If I commit my life to God, am I a Objectivist? If I make my my decisions according to my best understanding of what is reasonable, am I an Objectivist? If I write a book which contains material taken from other writers and I do not give them credit, am I a Objectivist? If If I'm a terrorist, am I an Objectivist? By your definitiom, I have no way to answer these questions. To even begin to answer them, I would need to call upon the principles of reason, objective reality, rational self-interest, and capitalism.

Shayne:

"To be an Objectivist is to substitute Ayn Rand's thinking for your own."

And: "Objectivism is what Ayn Rand said it is and nothing else."

These two statements contradict each other, and therefore both cannot be true. Ayn Rand said that the essence of Objectivism is the supremacy of reason; religion requires the abdication of reason.

George Donnelly:

"O-ism is a philosophy, regardless of what you or I say about it."

Yes, but which pholosophy is it? Your statement is of no assistance in determining whether one is or is not an Objectivist.

Michael:

"I use the term 'Objectivist' in the same way someone calls himself an 'Existentialist' or 'Kantian' or 'Marxist,' which means a person interested in, and highly influenced by, the ideas found in the bodies of thought designated by those words. Built into this concept is that fact that individuals exist and they are different from one another, thus there will be some differences of ideas between the author and the person interested/influenced."

Michael, you are on rhe right track, but you have not defined or explained Objectivism. I don't think you mean that to be an Objectivist is necessarily to be influenced by all the ideas found in Rand's writimgs; presumably you are referring to the essential ideas. But what are they?

When one attempts to argue on the basis of such definitions and concepts, it's no wonder there is blood on the floor.

At the risk of being condemned as a heretic -- and at the risk of being told I sound like a broken record -- I suggest that in order to define Objectivism, as a starting point we go to the writings of Ayn Rand. Presumably she has a right to contribute to the debate about what is Objectivism.

Rand: (from "Introducimg Objectivism," The Objectivist Newsletter, August, 1962)

"My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

"1. Reality exists as a objective absolute -- facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, whims, hopes or fears.

"2. Reason... is man's only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

"3. Man -- every man -- is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the the highest moral purpose of his life.

"4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders.... It is a system where no man may obtain any value from others by resorting to physical force and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others...."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

You are right.

Since I have mentioned all of these principles many times in the past here on OL and they are in the appropriate sections here in the philosophy section, I simply took it as a given that the people with whom I am discussing matters both took them as a given and understood that I did.

However, this discussion proves that these four principles (at the minimum) always need to be restated just to make sure.

Michael

[georgedonnelly]

a point of clarification BB: The only thing I am "at someone's throat" about is sjw claiming that AR said Objectivism was a religion. Later he claimed she just implied it. And he refuses to document his claim. I don't take well to people who are fast and loose with the truth.

BB: "Yes, but which pholosophy is it? Your statement is of no assistance in determining whether one is or is not an Objectivist."

Unfortunately it seems we have multiple threads of discussion going on in this forum thread. sjw says Objectivism is a religion. I simplied replied that it was a philosophy, and most definitely NOT a religion.

At no time was I attempting to assist in determining whether one is or is not an Objectivist. I chose not to get involved with UncleJim's points because, while I understand what he was saying, I found it too amorphous to comment on intelligently.

I hope this clears that up for you BB.

[edit: fix typo]

Edited February 16, 2008 by George Donnelly

[tjohnson]

1. Reality exists as a objective absolute -- facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, whims, hopes or fears.

This means that something exists which is independent of humans which I agree with, however, the moment we perceive it, it is no longer independent of us. Furthermore, our feelings, whims, hopes or fears can affect the way we perceive reality and if we are not careful they can predominate one's outlook.

2. Reason... is man's only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

I agree with this in general except 'reason' is not well-defined in my mind. When we create/extract knowledge from reality as in science it is accomplished with well established methodology and applied mathematics. What we call 'reason' is embodied in this methodology.

3. Man -- every man -- is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the the highest moral purpose of his life.

I don't really know where this is coming from, I find the use of 'sacrifice' odd and I'm not sure what she means by that.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders.... It is a system where no man may obtain any value from others by resorting to physical force and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others....

I have no problem with this except it seems rather vague and I find the use of terms like 'slaves' and 'executioners' emotionally loaded. I have not seen any slaves or executioners around here.

[BaalChatzaf]

I have no problem with this except it seems rather vague and I find the use of terms like 'slaves' and 'executioners' emotionally loaded. I have not seen any slaves or executioners around here.

If you calculate the time you must work to pay all your taxes, you are the servant and factotum of the government from Jan 1 to about the middle of May. The rest of the year is yours to use as you see fit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

If you calculate the time you must work to pay all your taxes, you are the servant and factotum of the government from Jan 1 to about the middle of May. The rest of the year is yours to use as you see fit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"servant' is not much better than "slave". These emotional arguments don't lead anywhere.

[georgedonnelly]

1. Reality exists as a objective absolute -- facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, whims, hopes or fears.

This means that something exists which is independent of humans which I agree with, however, the moment we perceive it, it is no longer independent of us. Furthermore, our feelings, whims, hopes or fears can affect the way we perceive reality and if we are not careful they can predominate one's outlook.

I perceive a mountain range that is visible from my window. That I perceived it does not change anything about it. If I dislike it, it does not cease to exist. If I hope for a bigger or smaller mountain, it does not correspondingly change in size. If I am afraid it will fall over and crush me, its structural stability neither increases or decreases. If any change occurs, it occurs in me, and not in the mountain, unless or until i walk to the mountain and start digging into it with my pickaxe.

Our perception of reality has no effect on reality.

[BaalChatzaf]

1. Reality exists as a objective absolute -- facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, whims, hopes or fears.

This means that something exists which is independent of humans which I agree with, however, the moment we perceive it, it is no longer independent of us. Furthermore, our feelings, whims, hopes or fears can affect the way we perceive reality and if we are not careful they can predominate one's outlook.

I perceive a mountain range that is visible from my window. That I perceived it does not change anything about it. If I dislike it, it does not cease to exist. If I hope for a bigger or smaller mountain, it does not correspondingly change in size. If I am afraid it will fall over and crush me, its structural stability neither increases or decreases. If any change occurs, it occurs in me, and not in the mountain, unless or until i walk to the mountain and start digging into it with my pickaxe.

Our perception of reality has no effect on reality.

Not generally true. To observe certain things you have to interact with them. For example shining a light upon something in order to observe it. This energy from the electromagnetic radiation with affect the thing observed. If you observe the thing by way of radiated energy, it affects you. If you stare at the sun, for example, at high noon on a clear day you will burn your retinas.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[georgedonnelly]

If you calculate the time you must work to pay all your taxes, you are the servant and factotum of the government from Jan 1 to about the middle of May. The rest of the year is yours to use as you see fit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"servant' is not much better than "slave". These emotional arguments don't lead anywhere.

it is not an emotional argument. it is quite factual.

The US government compels its citizens, including me, to file a report of income each year and pay taxes on that. The report must be signed which IMO comes close to a violation of the 5th Amendment. I am compelled to incriminate myself, essentially, since, should they decide to prosecute for fraud, they can use my own declaration against me in court. (Not that I am committing fraud but given the moving target that is the tax laws, they can always find something to charge you with.)

Whatsmore, as a small business owner, I am compelled to pay ahead my taxes 4 times per year. This includes payroll taxes (social security, medicare, etc) plus estimated federal income taxes. If I don't comply with these quarterly tax filings and payments, they apply large penalties. I also have to snitch on my employees and be responsible for their taxes on income earned from my company.

Eventually they would take all my assets if i failed to comply.

This, I submit, is a modern form of slavery, where the citizen is subservient to the demands of its government. They don't have us picking cotton in chains, but they still think they own us and the fruits of our labor.

[georgedonnelly]

Not generally true. To observe certain things you have to interact with them. For example shining a light upon something in order to observe it. This energy from the electromagnetic radiation with affect the thing observed. If you observe the thing by way of radiated energy, it affects you. If you stare at the sun, for example, at high noon on a clear day you will burn your retinas.

I said: "Our perception of reality has no effect on reality."

If you bombard an object with X-rays, visible light or even bullets, you are changing reality, but it is _not_ your perception that is changing the reality.

The act of perception has no effect. I may be better able to perceive the object now, but it is only because reality has been changed.

I'm familiar with quantum physics and how scientists have witnessed their act of perceiving or measuring a very small object as causing a change in said object, but I don't think that phenomenon is completely understood yet, so i don't consider it entirely factual yet.

Of course one might argue that by viewing something, you are casting a shadow over it as you interrupt the visible light. Or by hearing something, you interrupt the transmission of the sound waves. By touching something, you leave the oils of your skin. When you smell something, you are absorbing the molecules that carry that odor. And of course tasting has a similar effect as smelling.

So I may be technically incorrect, but not precisely for the reasons you named.

[georgedonnelly]

3. Man -- every man -- is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the the highest moral purpose of his life.

I don't really know where this is coming from, I find the use of 'sacrifice' odd and I'm not sure what she means by that.

Her meaning is well-documented in Atlas Shrugged IIRC but may I point you to the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html

I would paste an excerpt but ARI claims a copyright and I don't want to get in trouble.

[sjw]

Shayne:

"To be an Objectivist is to substitute Ayn Rand's thinking for your own."

And: "Objectivism is what Ayn Rand said it is and nothing else."

These two statements contradict each other, and therefore both cannot be true.

Agreed, but you seem to have missed my point that it's *Ayn Rand's* contradiction. What I'm doing is letting her have her say about what Objectivism is and saying "Fine, then I'm no Objectivist." You on the other hand are being selective about what you'll let her define her own philosophy to be.

I think we can't have it both ways. Either Objectivism is *Ayn Rand's* philosophy, or it is a philosophy based on hers. It is absurd to tell her what she can and can't include in *her* philosophy.

Shayne