Open vs. Closed system

[studiodekadent]

Studiodekadent,

Could you please give me a link to where D. Hsieh is criticizing Kelley on this. TIA.

No problem. Link: http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2005/07/ayn-rand-on-david-kelley.html

Relevant Quote: "So why develop this theory of Objectivism as an open system? What is the purpose of this folly?

My general suspicion is that David Kelley had a vision of what Objectivism might and ought to be -- if only written by a serious academic philosopher rather than some half-crazy Russian novelist. Perhaps he was genuinely concerned that Objectivism would fail to realize its potential as a major philosophical force in our culture unless fleshed out, toned down, and corrected for errors (T&T 60-2). Whatever the reason, Kelley clearly sought a philosophy like Objectivism in general outline -- but one more technically developed as a system and in its details, more tolerant of opposing views and open to new ideas, less passionate in its moral judgments and fiery polemics, and more capable of fitting comfortably in the world of academic philosophy."

I have a question: What exactly do you mean by "I believe this accusation is correct"?

Does it mean that you personally believe Diana Hsieh rightly accused David Kelley of making Objectivism acceptable in academic circles?

I believe Hsieh is right that Kelley aims to make Objectivism acceptable in academic circles. However, I don't think this is a bad thing to aim for, whereas Hsieh clearly thinks that the world of academic philosophy is a very corrupt and evil place.

[william.scherk]

I don't want to surrender the many real benefits of Rand's ideas to the cultists. I don't want them to be the face of Objectivism. They confirm every slanderous attack made by the Rand-haters.

Praise for the student of Objectivism in Australia, and his attempt to list the interpenetrating issues snarled about the Open/Closed discussion. I like how Andrew lists the questions that underly any attempt to delineate Correct [Randian] Thought:

From what I see, a WHOLE bunch of interrelated issues are present in the Open vs. Closed system debate.

1) Whether or not if Ayn Rand made mistakes or she didn't.

2) Whether or not, assuming Rand made mistakes, it is Objectivist to correct them.

3) Whether or not Ayn Rand was imperfect or perfect in practicing her own philosophy.

4) Whether Objectivism is a system of ideas defined by a set of essentials (i.e. the traits which differentiate Objectivism from all other philosophical systems) or whether or not it is a proper name for what Ayn Rand said.

5) Ayn Rand's level of "propriety" over the system.

6) Broadly speaking, separation of the philosophy from the philosopher.

In a discussion backstage with Andrew, I laid out my take:

From my point of view, there is no possible solution to the problem of Naming and sorting under the rubrics Objectivism/ists. There cannot be unity and there cannot be victory of one faction over another. Because the very idea of a unified/transcendant Randian philosphic corpus/guide brings out purity concerns and deviation concerns, and engages the sorry human propensity to groupthink, exclusion, sacralization and

religio-political

sectarianism.

[Xray]

Studiodekadent,

Could you please give me a link to where D. Hsieh is criticizing Kelley on this. TIA.

No problem. Link: http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2005/07/ayn-rand-on-david-kelley.html

Relevant Quote: "So why develop this theory of Objectivism as an open system? What is the purpose of this folly?

My general suspicion is that David Kelley had a vision of what Objectivism might and ought to be -- if only written by a serious academic philosopher rather than some half-crazy Russian novelist. Perhaps he was genuinely concerned that Objectivism would fail to realize its potential as a major philosophical force in our culture unless fleshed out, toned down, and corrected for errors (T&T 60-2). Whatever the reason, Kelley clearly sought a philosophy like Objectivism in general outline -- but one more technically developed as a system and in its details, more tolerant of opposing views and open to new ideas, less passionate in its moral judgments and fiery polemics, and more capable of fitting comfortably in the world of academic philosophy."

I have a question: What exactly do you mean by "I believe this accusation is correct"?

Does it mean that you personally believe Diana Hsieh rightly accused David Kelley of making Objectivism acceptable in academic circles?

I believe Hsieh is right that Kelley aims to make Objectivism acceptable in academic circles. However, I don't think this is a bad thing to aim for, whereas Hsieh clearly thinks that the world of academic philosophy is a very corrupt and evil place.

Thanks for the link, SD.

From Hsieh's article:

"So let us examine the basic folly of the open system -- and then ask ourselves what it accomplishes."

Closed system advocates like Hsieh offer interesting material study.

That she refers to open philosophical system as "basic folly" pretty much says it all.

Hsieh is an ideologist and thus intolerant of anything which might have the potential to threaten her cherished beliefs.

She did not "examine" Kelley's points at all btw. Instead she merely rejected them on the basis of her own uncritical belief in closed-sytem-Objectivism as some kind of 'eternal truth'.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Xray