JennaW Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Chewing, chewing, chewing...Rand's style of analysis and writing perhaps drew more of the analytical, logical, left-brain thinkers to her work; perhaps they took things a little too literally and rigidly. Systems and particulars matter, but not on their own. To only search for particulars at the expense of the whole system doesn't treat Objectivism as a living philosophy.It is in *how* ones looks at this in relation to reality that works. Reality consists of particulars AND systems--- take the analogy of a improv play. This play doesn't exist without that first word(s) that gets it going. It doesn't exist without characters. It still doesn't exist without character *interaction*, without scenes, nor scene interaction. It's not full without position, space, and time. It's not full without context, contrast, continuum, innovation, joy, or conscious awareness. It's full when it has all of these and ties things together in some way. Ultimately, this play is fluid, dynamic, and stable all at the same time; there are many possibilities that can be gathered from the factors (working off fundamentals)--- in which differing factors interacting (word, time, position, space, setting, character, context, contrast, etc.) can make the total play different than another juxtaposition of factors (different words, time, position, etc.). I see this in Objectivism, the philosophy.Our bodies are made up of particulars AND systems at many levels--- cells, and their interactions, make up organs. Organs, and their interactions, make up a human being. Human beings, and their interactions, make up a group. And so on. They are not static--- even being made of systems, like the improv play, they are adaptive, dynamic, but still contain essence. It is a process--- *life* is a process.But it doesn't mean that all abstracted principles from the axioms always have to go in *one* direction. When you do it that way, you miss out on context, creativity, potentiality, position, space, time, continuum, etc. I don't know about you, but I can't see the same exact non-improv play night after night after night.Freedom cannot exist without individual rights. Freedom cannot exist without free minds. A free market cannot exist without free minds. Guiltless, constructive, creative ideas cannot exist without free minds. Rand connected all these things together in a vague way *on purpose* so that she didn't *spoon feed* us. No wonder I was frustrated--- I wanted to elucidate things more from ITOE while I was complaining that it was "vague"--- when in fact, it is vague just so I can look between the lines and use my own mind to fill in specific details of my own life, thoughts, ideas, and current context!A system need not be compromised because it is not rigid--- in fact, its stability rests on adaption, dynamics, complexity. Like our biological bodies--- we are living embodiment of multiple nested systems that are dynamically stable, but adaptive, and *living*.I think to really engage Rand's works is to realize her (somewhat hidden) depth and to engage in putting flesh, blood,and reality in order to make it *living*--- like putting depth and dimension into a character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now