RoR: Forum

Barbara Branden wrote:

'I call myself a "Neo-Objectivist"—meaning that I accept the fundamentals of Objectivism but not all of the principles that are said to flow from those fundamentals.'

I find myself in something of the opposite position. I agree with much of what Rand said flowed from her fundamentals--knowledge of objective reality, reason, individualism, freedom, limited government--but disagree with many of the fundamentals she claimed got her there. (Of course, some of the conclusions are flawed as well.)

Q:
"'Neo-Objectivist'? Please. Disagreeing about the principles that flow from the fundamentals doesn't make you "neo" anything: after all, reasonable people DO disagree...

I feel I should use some such term as “Neo” because the founder of Objectivism insisted that one must accept its fundamentals as well as what she considered its corollaries – that is, the principles she had enunciated as following from the fundamentals – in order to legitimately be considered an Objectivist.

Labels can be such a pain. Like one-size-fits-all words. It was doubtless much easier when there was only one size Objectivist.

Wasn't it Henry Ford who said: "You can get Objectivists in any color, so long as it's black-and-white."?

LOL I think that's no longer true.

If this be treason . .

If this be treason, where do I sign up?

Nathan Hawking

(Edited by Nathan Hawking on 6/06, 1:23am)

(Edited by Nathan Hawking on 6/06, 1:56am)

Post 1

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 3:50am

Nathan: "f this be treason, where do I sign up?"

With Leonard Peikoff, of course.

What is heavy iron?

Barbara

Post 2

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 6:59am

Since I haven't found any mistakes in Ayn Rand's fundamental philosophy, Ms. Branden, I'm curious to know where you found disagreement on the fundamentals and/or their corollaries. I'm also curious as to what you think are the fundamentals and corollaries.

(I don't agree with Rand that "axiomatic concepts" can be called concepts, but I don't consider this definitional problem fundamental.)

And I was wondering why your definition of yourself as a neo-Objectivist is related to what others call themselves. If indeed, you are an Objectivist, why not proudly proclaim that and poo-poo the twits at ARI?

Post 3

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 8:33am

Deleted

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 6/06, 9:34am)

Post 4

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 9:43am

David, I've added your questions to those I will discuss in my next column. Thanks for submitting them.

Barbara

Post 5

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 9:57am

Barbara,

Sign up for treason with Peikoff? LOLOLOL...

I loved this column and the whole idea behind it. I can see very solid body of work on Objectivism being engendered here. After all, you are one of the founders of Objectivism and there should be something of yours out there other than a biography, Principles and just a few other things. I can even see this becoming a book later.

I also whole-heartedly agree, in this context, to your term Neo-Objectivist. Anyone using it will understand that this refers to a school that was founded (or sanctioned) by Barbara Branden and unveiled on Solo (or maybe mixed with Solo itself... whatever... ya'll work it out), regardless of where it may lead in the future. That name automatically sets it off from ARI and Nathaniel's work - and also from TOC and all the others who came later. Who knows, maybe this school will eventually absorb some of them?

Congratulations on the column and the name.

Michael

Post 6

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 10:15am

Michael,

A number of people have used the term neo-objectivist both the describe themselves and to describe others in the past. It was used to describe David Kelley in the Laissez-Faire book catalog in the late 90's. It has been used to describe Tibor Machan as well and he may use it himself.

Chris Sciabarra prefers the term post-Randian.

I used it to describe myself in the past as well, and even had it as my e-mail address for a time.

So I don't think that it can be used to refer to a school founded by Barbara.

Bill

Post 7

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 10:30am

Michael: "I can even see this becoming a book later."

You are the second person who has suggested this.

And many thanks for your congratulations.

Barbara

Post 8

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 10:32am

Bill: "So I don't think that it can be used to refer to a school founded by Barbara."

You are quite correct, Bill. The term applies to a great many people.

Barbara

Post 9

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 10:33am

Brant, where did your post go? It disappeared a moment after I read it!

Barbara

Post 10

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 10:52am

Can we assume that although not the "Greatest Philosopher " Leonard Peikoff may have a claim as the wealthiest?

Post 11

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 11:11am

Thank you, Barbara. I look forward to your next column.

Post 12

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 11:13am

Bill,

%#$*&*&%^...

BARBARA IS MY HEROINE!!!

So Neo-Objectivist is not her term? Dayamm!

(Can't blame a guy for trying, though...)

Michael

Post 13

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 11:19am

Michael,

I'm not blaming you at all. After all you were in Brazil when all this was going on. Sometimes I wish I had been too. :) Or somewhere else anyway. Unfortunately I'm just pointing out the facts of reality.

You could be a "Barbaraite." BTW I've submitted a poll about labels. Maybe the moderators will deem it worthy.

Bill

Post 14

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 11:58am

Barbara,
I deleted the post; it wasn't worded right and may have been wrong. You are to forget what it said until and if I say it again. Purge your mind!

--Brant

Post 15

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 12:11pm

Dayamm Bill!

Barbaraite

Gotta nice ring to it. Yep. I like it. Fits me like a custom made shoe, like a bee and honey, like a gold miner and his donkey, like chewing tobacco and a spittoon, ahem... er... that's enough metaphors for now...

Now Barbaraite is one hell a term for ya'. Congrats to you.

You work in advertising or something?

Michael

Post 16

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 12:31pm

Michael,

Nope. I don't work in advertising. I've coined the term but it doesn't describe me. Feel free to use it though.

Bill

Post 17

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 12:33pm

Barbara:

Nathan: "If this be treason, where do I sign up?"

With Leonard Peikoff, of course.

LOL

What is heavy iron?

Barbara

Heavy iron consists of large, circular slabs of metal denominated in weights of 5, 10, 25, and 50 pounds into which people who have more energy than good sense insert long bars and masochistically lift repeatedly (while making grunting sounds that polite society often finds disturbing) until they collapse into a sweaty-but-satisfied heap.

More or less.

NH

Post 18

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 12:56pm

David:

And I was wondering why your definition of yourself as a neo-Objectivist is related to what others call themselves. If indeed, you are an Objectivist, why not proudly proclaim that and poo-poo the twits at ARI?

A neo-rose by any other neo-name would smell as sweet.

I suspect that Barbara's more interested in describing a distinction than poo-pooing. Besides:

If some weasel cost me 25 grand by using Ayn Rand's money to abrogate an agreement Ayn Rand made, I might want a designation different than said weasel's.

NH

Post 19

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 12:57pm