About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 3:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the comments everyone.  I was out for the weekend, so sorry I didn't get to respond.

Pete, I talk about altruism to people occasionally, and some approaches work better than others.  Just talking about it as some kind of mindless evil doesn't connect with them, because they can't imagine people living by a sacrificial creed.  Instead, I usually ask them what kind of things they think are morally praiseworthy, or are "good deeds".  You quickly notice that it's all about other people, and you can point that out.  You might also get them to express that the greater the sacrifice, the more noble the act.  Either way, it introduces the topic in an interesting way and I've had a number of good conversations from that starting point.

Cass, obviously I disagree, and I take that quote to mean something entirely different.  She's specifically talking about a philosophy that she describes.  It's not a compilation of her words...her words are a description of an objective philosophy.  Even the ARI practices the belief that Objectivism is something that can be described in words other than Rand's.  Leonard Peikoff wrote a book titled Objectivism, and it wasn't just quotes from Ayn Rand.  Amazing. 

Also, if you look at more of her writings, she has other interesting quotes that shed light on it.  For instance, she talks about future Objectivist theoreticians.  In other words, people who contribute to the Objectivist philosophy.  As in, not just her.  Sounds almost as if Objectivism is a philosophy, and not just a description of one woman's opinions.

Michael, you win the award for the most unique compliment.  Thanks.

Thanks to everyone else for the kind words.


Post 21

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 9:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh. well., that
Joe,
I've read Peikoffs' book, along with Rands' preface comments, that she endorsed what he had written. And I've seen nothing to suggest she thought that future contribors to the philosophy, - and believe me, I'm one of them, - would stray from the core principles. This means that one doesn't see Objectivism as "anything goes".  Anything contributing must still always stick to the basic principles. Otherwise, on basis are you claiming that what you are positing is "Objectisim" .  As far as I can see, from what your wrote, anything can be "Objectivism". As in :

"I actually advocate genocide of people who dont agree with my view of the world"
"Oh, on what basis do you do that?"
"Oh, the philosophy of Objectivism"
"But I thought Objectivism as Rand stated it didn't accept such a concept"
:"Oh well, thats just Rand. I've interpreted it differently, made it grow to take current mores into account, and overlook Rands' errors about how far you can go in killing people"
"and thats' Objectivism?"
"Yes"
"oh well, thats ok then"
Cass


Post 22

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I know the open closed argument has been beaten to death (at least those advocating either position have been), but here goes: Yes Rand called it Objectivism. She was the architect and I happen to think its her baby, if "closed" fits then fine.

But, I believe the point Joseph was making is that not *everything* she said is Objectivism. I don't think Joseph is advocating an *everything goes* pseudo objectivism, but rather, from this article, an atmosphere where, even among those who consider themselves objectivists, room for disagreement, debate, and celebration.

There is some confusion though among those whom while calling themselves Objectivists, hold positions that are antithetical to the fundamentals of the philosophy. Like a friend I had in college who used to say: "I'm a vegetarian, but sometimes I eat chicken and fish".

John

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 1:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cass says "As far as I can see, from what your wrote, anything can be 'Objectivism'."

I don't see any reason to say that.  I said that her words describe a philosophy, instead of the philosophy being her words.  That's why other people could contribute.  If the philosophy is objective in nature, not being just a compilation of her words, then other people can grasp it and identify it themselves.

Think of it this way.  Imagine a mathematical function f(x)=x+3.  You could describe it by giving examples, like where x is 2, f(x) is 5.  You can do lots of descriptions.  But the descriptions are not the function itself....they merely describe it.  Since the function is objective in nature (you're not just making things up willy-nilly), other people can grasp it as well, and give further descriptions/examples.

The same can be said for Objectivism.  Rand didn't just have a series of unconnected opinions.  She had a number of integrated principles that together shape a philosophy.  Describing that philosophy is an attempt to identify it, not a substitute for it.  Just as a definition is not a concept, just a description of it.  She had reasons for saying the things she did about the philosophy, and explained her reasons.  If someone were to take her words as unfounded "truths" they needed to accept in order to call themselves an Objectivist, they would be missing the entire point of what she said.  And tying this to my article, if you preach acceptance without understanding, the result would not be an Objectivist at all.  Someone who accepts each sentence of hers as an unconnected statement taken on faith is not a real Objectivist, nor would they actually be accepting Objectivism qua philosophy.

Is this compatible with "anything goes"?  Hell no!  That's like saying just because the mathematical function is not just a set of examples, any other examples is okay.  Since the philosophy has an objective nature, it can be identified.  And that also means that things that are not compatible with the philosophy can be identified as such.  Rand doesn't have to tell us that radical environmentalism, with its worship of nature and hatred of man, is incompatible with Objectivism.  If we understand the philosophy which she describes, we can draw that conclusion ourselves.

Similarly, we can look at her various statements and see which ones are philosophical in nature (just because she wrote that she loved her husband, doesn't mean that loving her husband is a requisite part of Objectivism), and which are correctly tied to the philosophy.  If in that function I gave above, I listed in my set of examples (100,102), you could correctly argue that I made a mistake.  That's because the examples are not the function, only attempted applications of it.  If you grasp the underlying premise of the function, you can check the applications of it yourself.  Similarly with Objectivism.  If Rand applied the philosophy but made a logical error along the way, or had accidently accepted an incorrect premise, we could identify it as such.  Anyone who tries to equate her proper use of reason with her mistakes is trying to sever her ideas from reality and from each other, and leaving it all as a dogma.

And frankly, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that they have no understanding of her philosophy and that they treat each conclusion as if it were an isolated, unconnected dogma.

Read Lindsay Perigo's "Fundamentals & Fidelity" on this site for more on the topic.

John, you're right that I don't think everything she said was Objectivism.  Otherwise, Objectivism would be the collection of random whims of some woman. And as for whether I think it's open or closed, as Lindsay's article says, it really comes down to what you mean by a "closed" system.


Post 24

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 1:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael: "They simply approached Atlas like they probably do religion and social issues; unthinkingly."

You're right, Michael -- but my feeling in such cases is always: But. . . but. . . but. . . don't you SEE?

Barbara

Post 25

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 3:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You're right, Michael -- but my feeling in such cases is always: But. . . but. . . but. . . don't you SEE?

Barbara
Haha, that is why it is fantastic to have great friends to come home to!

Michael



Post 26

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 2:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And furthermore, you're preaching that logical consistency is more important than a true connection with reality.
This came up as a random past article and I'm so glad it did!  The whole thing was brilliant (as usual!) but the above sentence struck me in a very real way.  I've made the mistake of putting more emphasis on the former and although I realized the mistake before this, that statement helps drive it home.  Thanks Joe!

Jason


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 3:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason - Thank you for commenting on this magnificent article by Joseph Rowlands, thus putting it in the "last 50" list. I would have taken much longer to get to it. I want to quote a line, but there are just too many I agree with.

Hey, Joe - Here's an idea for another article: A Ban on SOLOist Cloning.

Michael


Post 28

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 4:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe, I hadn't seen this piece by you before, but it's wonderful. I've tried to say similar things myself over the years, and sometimes think I've said them well; but I do confess that I envy the same passage Ed Thompson pointed out in comment #3:

If you insist that they have to accept everything, you're also pushing a kind of mind-body dichotomy. You're praising the importance of being right, instead of the value gained from being right. It's as if being rational and logical were virtues in themselves, and that they have nothing to do with living. And furthermore, you're preaching that logical consistency is more important than a true connection with reality.


That was exactly the central point of my talk, "The Value-Seeking Personality." But you said in a paragraph what I developed in an hour.

Bravo, fella.



Post 29

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 5:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the comments guys.  I'm a little shocked to hear you hadn't read it before.  Why aren't you out reading all of my old articles!?!?  Thanks for bring it back into the spotlight Jason.


 


Post 30

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Damnit!  I shouldn't have said it came up as a random past article.  Then I could claim credit for all of those past articles I have read of yours, Joe!

Another chance at brownie points lost :-(      :-P


Post 31

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 6:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quit encouraging Joe to post links to his articles, you lot. One and a half shameless sluts (Diabolical & Bob, not necessarily in that order) are quite enough.

Post 32

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 6:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Them's fightin' words, Perigo! WHO'S "shameless"???

--Robert


Post 33

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 6:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I got 5 bucks that says Perigo takes him out by the 7th round, any takers?

George


Post 34

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 7:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah, well I believe Herr Doktor Bobby Boy and me have a grudge match to settle first.

Bring it on, Bidinotto.  I'll rock your world.


Post 35

Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George ventured:

"I got 5 bucks that says Perigo takes him out by the 7th round, any takers?"

Cordero, you poor benighted fool—I took out the strapping Rowlands in an arm-wrestling competition in 30 seconds at SOLOC 1. You seriously think it would take me 7 Fight Club rounds to annihilate that weedy Peikovian intrinsicist Bidinotto? Why, he'd evaporate if I so much as breathed on him. Or called him Bob.

Lusty Linz






Post 36

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 5:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In my experience, a man's fighting ability is inverse to his boastfulness.

Hear that, Linny?

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 5:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, but one concession: I agree with Linny that I, or anyone, would evaporate if he breathed on him.

Post 38

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 2:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Down with Objectibots!

Just thought a comment was needed to bring this old gem back to the foreground.

Jason


Post 39

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 3:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,

I'm willing. So teach me, how do I avoid becoming an Objectibot?

Tom


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.