A big thank-you to Stephen Hicks for engaging in the debate, to Ayn Rand Center Europe for hosting it, and to NICON participants for their active-mindedness and great questions.
This quote by Ayn Rand (in introduction to "The Objectivist Forum", 1980) may be relevant here: «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). […] 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 any flights of fancy you wish, on your own.»
@@victor_rybin wow that’s what you got out of that? So when Led Zeppelin retires and they all die and they ask that nobody write music under their name it’s a cult? She’s saying that if you make any improvements or expand upon objectivism, just don’t call whatever you do “objectivism“. Objectivism is what she calls her philosophical ideas. It doesn’t mean you can’t make improvements or changes. You just can’t call it objectivism
I like Dr. Hicks’s analogy with the way we treat Newtonian physics, but I think it may hurt his case. Newtonian physics is almost always in reference to both the content, his optics and mechanics, but often also the form, ray diagrams and differentials applied to mass points in physical space. People built on top of this, integrated it with other fields of science, and invented different useful mathematical systems, but they don’t get categorized under Newtonian physics. A good example of this is the d’Alembert system, which is a mathematical system that allows for Newtonian mechanics to be applied to continuums, ie wave mechanics. Typically these would get classified under Mechanics, but later “classical mechanics.” So I think with Objectivism you need to identify which parts, whether ideas, concepts, theories, arguments, etc are core to the philosophy. And in that sense it’s closed, just like Newtonian physics is. It’s an integrated whole developed by Rand which can serve as a basis for further development. But things that may be later discovered to be incorrect dont pose an issue because if it’s wrong it won’t actually integrate with the rest of the body of work, and in that regard get conceptually parsed out. This is what happened with Newton’s theory of light. While his corpuscular theory gets mentioned for historical context and within the rationale of the development of the science, it doesn’t get captured in Newtonian physics since it’s a nonessential part. There’s probably similarities here with the way we treat Aristotle’s work w.r.t. Aristotelianism. But something like Rand’s “crow epistemology” is not similar in that regard. Aristotle’s Platonic remnants don’t integrate with the core elements of his work, thus don’t get incorporated into Aristotelianism. The crow theory and measurement omission parts of Rand’s epistemology are absolutely fundamental, being the basis of the need and the process of abstraction and concept formation, and her aesthetics, etc. If you think those are wrong, then Objectivism is wrong and a new system should be erected. This would be like rejecting the concept of the material ether and theory of inertia; whether you agree with that or not (I don’t) you’d have to reject Newtonian physics and create a new system based on different core ideas, which is what Einstein and then Bohr, Heisenberg, etc did. This last example is a good thought point, being that both Relativity and Quantum physics use Newtons equations (pragmatically), but they aren’t built on top of Newtonian physics, they don’t integrate with it, and thus the creation of the term “classical physics” that encompasses logical theories of the physics of the material world, which Newtonian physics is a part, but the systems of Modern physics are not.
Basically, what are we calling Newton‘s ideas? His ideas. People still came along and improved upon them or had different ideas, but they did not call it Newtonian physics.
Agreed. I also think it's useful for people to clearly define that 'something else' , especially if it's compatible with and/or built upon objectivism. I really like the idea of naming it by the author and it becoming closed once the author dies. It makes it all very clear, while still allowing people to build upon ideas so to progress philosophy as a whole
Nicely done, Craig. Your most incisive points were the statements that it doesn’t matter whether Ayn Rand was right or whether she covered everything. It only matters what she said. That is hers. That is a Objectivism. End of subject. Closed. Thanks.
As far as the question of being open or closed it is closed insofar as the original philosophy by it's name Objectivism. Stephen made very good points in terms of the fact that no single philosophy is entirely complete and that a philosophy is open in the sense that it leaves room for further development, but it needs to be clearly stated where Ayn Rand's philosophy ends and where the furtherance begins and should not be termed Objectivism
Thanks Craig & Stephen for an excellent discussion on this topic. For me, I’m more convinced by Craig’s reasoning. It’s irrelevant, in this context, whether Objectivism is correct or complete. It is also irrelevant whether it should be questioned or not, though of course it should be. Before someone can add/subtract/modify from Objectivism one must first know precisely what it is to begin with. It’s only because Objectivism is closed that it can be meaningfully developed further (but it can no longer be called Objectivism.) Whether it’s objectivism vs philosophical-truths, Euclidean-geometry vs geometry, Newtonian-physics vs physics or Marxist-socialism vs socialism, the former is closed and the latter is open. If mathematicians, physicists, and Marxists have failed to treat it as such, that’s a mistake they need to fix, not a pattern we need to import here (especially given that they don’t have the correct theory of concept formation to help them.) Ultimately, due to lack of sufficient meaningful vocabulary, I suppose the following naming convention may have some merit: Rand’s philosophy (Objectivism) vs Rand-Peikoff’s philosophy vs Rand-Peikoff-Binswanger-Craig’s philosophy and so on. At some point it just terminates with every person’s individual philosophy.
All that matters is: Does Ayn Rand's philosophy cover everything and anything new is not inductively new, but rather deduced, or did she miss something such that we must compromise with another philosophy or theology? The answer is no. Objectivism is closed because it cannot share the truth with other philosophies or religions.
Why not refer to the works of Peikoff, Binswanger, et. al. as Post-Objectivist philosophy. It distinguishes it from Objectivism proper while connecting it to the philosophical basis from whence it came? Since it is not the name of a particular system as such but a generic term for philosophical development arising from Rand's ideas it can even allow for different philosophers with different/conflicting interpretation of those ideas.
@@ExistenceUniversity no that is not the issue. The issue is: objectivism is her philosophy, right or wrong, and any improvements or additions or expansions cannot be called objectivism.
I like Stephen Hicks, but he didn't score a single point here. Objectivism is not something you do, it is a describable set of ideas. Philosophy is what you do, but he seems to want to make the "doing" of philosophy based on Rand into objectivism, when it needn't be and for clarity's sake shouldn't be. Why confuse this easy issue unless there is another motive? I actually got the feeling that Stephen didn't totally agree with the side he was debating for.
Dr. Hicks teaches Rand's philosophy as a realist philosophy in the same vein as Aristotleanism and other 'primacy of existence' philosophers, as distinct from other types. His motive is probably to integrate their philosophies into a predictable model. "Realistst view the world in a particular way."
Very confused as to why Hicks thinks it being closed has anything to do with it being complete or totally correct. These don’t seem at all related to me and everyone on the closed side seems to agree it’s not complete and that it being totally correct or not has nothing to do with this. What an odd digression from the actual matter.
It is terribly bad reasoning. I used to find Hicks respectable, even though I thought his association with the abhorrent Atlas Society odd and suspect.
In his explanation, completeness is not necessary for art; a creation of an individual, but it is the standard for a science; a methodology for discovering reality. Dr. Hicks seemed to be building a case that Ayn Rand's books are her art but that her purpose of her art was to encourage an independent relationship between an individual and reality, not an individual and her art. If Ayn Rand's goal was to treat philosophy as a science, then she would not want people to limit their understanding to her works alone. Objectivism is open and still under development.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 I’m not saying I’m on the closed side, but that is an absurd straw man of it. The closed side has never been about not being open to understanding new things. The debate literally began with Peikoff saying he had his own new understandings, come on! And it comes off incredibly dishonest to say that that is what the open side is about when the closed side fully endorses it and always has. That cannot be what the disagreement is about when both sides fully agree on it. Let’s stick to the actual debate which is whether those new understandings are part of Objectivism or not.
@Francesca Serrecchia I think you are ultimately right. Many of us view Objectivism as a blueprint for validation of knowledge. We are like a man with a hammer, seeing everything as a nail. In reality Rand said that her philosophy was inductive. All knowledge is inductive. "Is it true" isn't proven by testing it against axioms or principles. "Is it true" is proven by observation.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 Philosophy, qua science, is of course “open” in the sense we’re using the term. But it is beyond debate whether Objectivism, which is a term used simply to denote Rand’s philosophy, is closed. And she was very clear on the matter, so you’re wrong to imply that she would be on the “open” side.
Two part question for Prof. Hicks: 1) What is Existentialism? 2) Who is its founder? For Craig Biddle: What is the name of Aristotle's philosophy? Or Kant's? (Not the name of their particular works).
Question 1. Is addressing differences individuals can have in the application of the ideas of Objectivism as created by Ayn Rand a different question than the theme for this debate? For example - 2. Was Nathaniel Branden's work changing Rands's philosophy or developing and clarifying how to apply objectivism in the face of life's challenges? Could this be the difference between the open and closed disagreement What Vs How?
After listening to the debate and reading through the comments here, I appealed to my final authority (to paraphrase Craig) -- the requirements of my cognitive apparatus -- and concluded that the distinction between open and closed Objectivism is clear and meaningful to me so that I don't feel "muddled" and therefore will continue to use these terms to contextualize past and future contributions to the field. Consider this: Scholars make contextual comments to distinguish between Aristotle's philosophical writings and those of others in the Aristotelian tradition. When I read or hear the terms Aristotelianism, Platonism, Thomism, etc., I recognize these terms may very well refer to something other than what is found in the writings of Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, etc.
I think Biddle had the better presentation and argument. The major points that Hicks starts off with were all mistakes, and he lost me almost immediately. Objectivism isn't a science, anymore than relativity is a science. Physic, chemistry, biology are all sciences but evolution or relativity are scientific theories. Similarly, Rand talks about ethics or epistemology as sciences but Objectivism is a philosophical system (sometimes referred to as a philosophy), not a science. He then goes on to waste time talking about patents and copyrights, both of which are irrelevant since they don't apply and because no one has ever claimed they should apply to Objectivism!
@@Steelpeachandtozer what's being referred to here is the distinction between science-the-process and products-of-science, the latter often casually also being called science. Objectivism is a products-of-science, not a process of thought, although Objectivist epistemology would give you advice on how to think more clearly. Just as relativity is a theory although you could apply it to other problems in physics/engineering.
Regarding Rand's definition of "life" as a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action: if chemistry finds a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action that is not considered alive, such as a particular chemical reaction, would this fact negate Rand's definition of "life"? If Objectivism is a closed system, then finding non-living self-sustaining and self-generated action would not contradict Rand's definition of "life." However, if Objectivism is an open system, then it is open to change based on new evidence. And in the light of this new evidence from chemistry, Objectivism would be forced to rethink its definition of "life."
according to Rand's objectivism any definition is only needed to distinguish one concept from others, and if it stops doing it -- you can change the definition. e.g., for a baby, a valid definition of a _"man"_ would be _"a moving loud object"_ , untill the baby encounters cars and animals
@@victor_rybin True. I'm just pointing out that Objectivists treat such definitions as absolute, when they are not. And they will continue to treat the definition of "life" as absolute until Leonard Peikoff says otherwise. As a chemist, he should know that chemical reactions exist which demonstrate self-sustaining and self-generated action. Also, it would be necessary to include the fact that life evolves, except Rand didn't believe in evolution so that will never happen.
Didn’t Ayn Rand say that every word, name, or label is the final point of concept formation with the necessary methodology of observation and induction before the final point? If we think of it this way, then we can say Objectivism as the name of the philosophy developed by Ayn Rand was chosen and used because it is the final point of concept formation and the appropriate name of the systematic philosophy that was developed by Rand’s observations and abstractions of the fundamental elements in Objectivism. If we agree on and fully grasp the fundamentals and axioms of Objectivism, as a name or label, then any further developments and explanations should still be recognized as the same thing, given that the fundamentals are not tweaked. For example, if we all agree on what the fundamental elements should be to constitute the concept of a table, any further changes or expansions, let’s say styles and colors, won’t really matter, as long as we don’t change the fundamental elements that are key to identifying a table. With that, I don’t see why Craig is so worried about adding things to Objectivism will change it so dramatically and make it a chaos. It will still be clear what Objectivism is if the fundamentals are untouched. Another interesting thought is what if Ayn Rand passed away after she developed her theory of ethics and before her theory of epidemiology, and called her philosophy Objectivism already? And say a person later used her theory of ethics to develop what today we’ll call the Objectivist epistemology. In that case, should that person’s new expansion be called Objectivism, because it is reasonable to assume that had Ayn Rand lived longer to see his work, she would agree with his ideas.
I had the same question. If new knowledge integrates with Rand's philosophy but occurred after she died, is it not a logical conclusion to her premises? If that is not the case, then Objectivism has nothing to say on the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1991.
I didn't get to watch this when it first came out, but I'm finally caught up. I had always assumed that Objectivism was a closed system, but this talk enhanced my clarity on the subject. Stephen Hicks is correct in noting that philosophy is a science, but I think he makes a mistake by conflating the practice of science with a specific set of ideas. For example, Archimedes' Principle is an idea that is arrived at by practicing science. It is not the practice of science. It is a principle resulting from science. So too, Objectivism is a system of ideas that were generated through the practice of philosophy. Newton's Laws are not Archimedes' Principle, nor vice versa. Both are ideas resulting from the practice of science, but they are not the same thing. They are separate, and they deserve to be thought of separately, even when they are both used in concert. Objectivism is a system of Rational Egoism. Rational Egoism is a virtue-based framework for defining ones character and behavior based on adhering to a set of fundamental principles within an integrated set of virtues; (RIPJIPH) rationality, independence, productivity, justice, integrity, pride, honesty. Objectivism does not necessarily preclude any other systems of Rational Egoism. The way that people think about religion seems to set them up to make false assumptions about Rational Egoism. Religion is a subset of philosophy, which has Faith in a higher power as its base premise. Religion is generally exclusive. You pick one to the exclusion of all others. Every secular form of philosophy exists outside of the subset of philosophy known as religion. Humanism, Socialism, Existentialism, Pragmatism, Marxism and the majority of secular philosophies are also exclusive. Each new set gets a new name. None of these other philosophies are fully compatible with one another. This is because they are based on assertions rather than on empiricism. Rational Egoism is different. The subset of Rational Egoism as defined by Ayn Rand is the system that she named Objectivism. It is not comprehensive, but it is based on truth. Being of an empirical nature allows for truths defined within Objectivism to align with other truths not contained within the system of Ayn Rand. Truth is specific. A thing either is, or it is not. A is A. A is not non-A. Objectivism is also something specific. However, time and space are infinite, and therefore the truths that may exist within time and space may also be infinite. Religion says that God is the answer to everything, so you should stop asking questions and have Faith. Rational Egoism posits that we don't know all the answers, but that they are discoverable. Objectivism says, here are the things that Ayn Rand figured out. Use them or don't. There are any number of truths which might integrate with Objectivism. If Ayn Rand didn't figure them out, then they are not part of her system. If you figured them out, then they are part of your system. Ayn Rand is not a demi-God, and neither are any of us. She deserves credit for what she achieved, just as you deserve credit for what you achieve. If you can write it in a book and publish it, then you can formally name your own set of philosophical truths.
“For all her popularity, however, only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. As a result, most of the serious philosophical work on Rand has appeared in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed journals, or in books, and the bibliography reflects this fact.” “Whereas Rand’s ideas and mode of presentation make Rand popular with many non-academics, they lead to the opposite outcome with academics. She developed some of her views in response to questions from her readers, but seldom took the time to defend them against possible objections or to reconcile them with the views expressed in her novels. Her philosophical essays lack the self-critical, detailed style of analytic philosophy, or any serious attempt to consider possible objections to her views. Her polemical style, often contemptuous tone, and the dogmatism and cult-like behavior of many of her fans also suggest that her work is not worth taking seriously.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I think this dialog presents an interesting question. Craig Biddle spoke on the content of Objectivism and Stephen Hicks spoke on the form overtaking the content. If Ayn Rand's content, her writings, are true to her philosophy's form, the methodology, shouldn't further non-condradictory content which fits her methodology be taken as a logical conclusion to her premises? One day we may come into contact with an immortal robot. Would Rand's philosophy be able to predict whether or not such a being could have values, emotions, or self-esteem?
Objectivism isn't a form. Reason would be the form that is used by Objectivism. But reason is not exclusive to Objectivism so claiming that anything that follows reason is part of Objectivism would make little sense.
@Ian Gilmore @Ian Gilmore science>philosophy>epistemology>reason>conceptualization>essentialism Knowledge is hierarchical. There are many forms of reason and conceptualization which would contradict Rand's philosophy. Essentialism is a small subset of a subset within reason, which as you said is not exclusive to Objectivism but does make Objectivism particular. I can see why Craig said that allowing a subset to define its category (frozen abstraction) can lead to errors. I was ALMOST going to say that ITOE was the form/method of Objectivism, but I need to chew on this a little longer.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 There cannot be an immoral robot nor could such a thing live, and that's because Objectivism is closed, aka correct and it's philosophy cannot be compromised by magic as magic doesn't exist.
All truths are non-contradictory. That would make everything Objectivism. Objectivism is only the set of ideas Rand laid out and any obvious deductions from them. No more inductive truths can be added under that label.
Although Biddle had great points, he openly conceded the point. Rand does not own it, it can be expounded upon with more concepts that integrate with Oist axioms. That's the whole discussion.
Enjoyed this debate greatly. Both gentlemen were excellent. Personally, I was most persuaded by the Stephen Hicks approach/argument. However, I would have liked to hear some specific examples/illustrations from each speaker of what is "open" and what is "closed" -- using specific quotes expressing Ayn Rand's fundamental ideas. Using examples it would be much easier to understand the extent of their actual disagreement -- which might not be as big as it looked by the end of the session.
Craig Biddle's philosophy is definitely a philosophy to be followed by librarians and achivists. There are only finite number of words in any language and old words get reused in different contexts and redefined over time. Philosophers can't stop this unless they become absolute dictators, but they can curate and help protect the language against concepts with implicit or explicit contradictions.
Ayn Rand copies Marx in her claims that her philosophy is a science. Marx was formulating his corpus when the social sciences and humanities were coalescing into the fields they have become today, and before science had codified its methodology. So, Marx can be forgiven. What is Rand's excuse, other than being a complete ignoramus and hypocrite (she was on the dole at the end of her life)?
Mr. Hicks could lay the whole issue to rest by agreeing to simply add properly-labeled commentaries to Objectivism but not to incorporate anything into Objectivism. Problem solved.
This is from Nathaniel Branden: "David Kelley drew to my attention something I wrote in the Objectivist in April, 1965 - “A Message to Our Readers.” I wrote: “In the future, when Objectivism has become an intellectual and cultural movement on a wider scale, when a variety of authors have written books dealing with some aspect of the Objectivist philosophy - it could be appropriate for those in agreement to describe themselves as ‘Objectivists.’ However, at present, when the name is so intimately associated with Rand and me, it is not. At present, a person who is in agreement with our philosophy should describe himself, not as an Objectivist, but as a student or supporter of Objectivism.” Today I regret that second sentence as inappropriate and stultifying, but note the implications of the first sentence, which, I assure you, had Rand’s full knowledge and approval. (Everything in our publication was edited by her.) We were clearly projecting a future when “Objectivism” would cover far more than the writings of Rand. If, later, Rand pulled back from that vision, it was for reasons more emotional than philosophical, and one can feel compassion for her suffering, but still… she was right the first time and wrong the second." nathanielbranden.com/who-is-an-objectivist/
Nonsense, Nathaniel Branden stating she was right the first time is meaningless. First he claims co-ownership of her philosophy and than he says take my word she had full knowledge and approval within those two paragraphs. Why would anyone believe anything he had to say. He is not credible…
@@pfarias You don't have to take Branden's word for it. The reason he, Greenspan & Robert Hessen's writings that were approved by her are considered to be "Objectivism" is because she reviewed everything printed in those newsletters to make sure she approved. Are you suggesting that he slipped that in the newsletter past her and she never thought to publicly correct it? That's nonsense.
Nonsense, that is a fallacy of logic 🤣. Your rebuttal does not address the issue. He is a proven liar how would he know or even have a mind capable of knowing her reasons?
@@pfarias He had a mind capable of writing essays that are part of "Objectivism". You are using the "he's a proven liar" to ignore that she approved everything that went into anything with her name on it in her lifetime. There's evidence of that all in her letters, and even asking any of the "old guard" would confirm. You just don't want to have to admit that her view changed after the '68 split.
Scot, I guess you are not getting my point or maybe I have not been clear? If she changed her mind so what. I am disputing the liars motives and therefore the relevance. “If later, Rand pulled back from that vision, it was for reasons more emotional than philosophical, and one can feel compassion for her suffering, but still… she was right the first time and wrong the second.” 🤣 what a putz, total nonsense
Open or closed, our misrulers are not threatened by Objectivists in the least. That's why you guys can engage in Objectivist theater like denouncing Immanuel Kant all you want without running the risk of being canceled. The people in power are just not invested in Kant's reputation.
Hicks has the better argument. Rand clearly saw her philosophical work as creating a concept, not a particular. She clarified many concepts: capitalism, egoism, objectivity, etc. And integrated the whole. The original formulation should be called just that, the original formulation.
I want to address the distinction that Hicks made early on, which I found to be brilliant: Rand as artist vs. Rand as "scientist". A great paper from the 1970s I recommend is: "Prematurity and Uniqueness in Scientific Discovery", by Gunther Stent. One question Stent raises is: what is the difference between scientific genius vs. artistic genius? He directly poses the question, "are scientific creations any less unique than artistic creations?" He answers that, yes, they are, with the following argument. (Below, I will tie this all in with Rand.) If Shakespeare or Picasso had never lived, those specific great masterpieces that they created would never have been created. However, for any great scientist, sooner or later someone else would have discovered what they discovered. In fact, the book by Peter Bowler, a Darwin scholar, titled: "Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World Without Darwin", argues that sooner or later, (though perhaps many decades later), something resembling "Darwinism", though under another name, would surely have appeared, even if Darwin had never existed. (Alfred Russel Wallace's discoveries were very similar to Darwin's in key aspects, but Darwin's arguments in "Origin of Species" were way more deeply and fully developed than what Wallace would have ever been able to match. Put another way: though Wallace was a brilliant man, he could not have put together anything like the "one long argument" that Darwin offered in "Origin of Species"-- that massive integration of highly disparate data that showed the power of the notion of Natural Selection. Thus, Wallace was no substitute for Darwin, even though they both converged on the basic idea of Natural Selection.) If neither Shakespeare nor Darwin had ever lived, we would never have "King Lear" or "Hamlet"; but we would surely have something resembling "Darwinism". Or as Stent put it (paraphrasing): if Watson and Crick had never been born, someone would still have, sooner or later, discovered the DNA double-helix. Now imagine: If we say that Rand was akin to a scientist, but had died young or had never been born, would something resembling what we now know as "Objectivism"--though by a different name, have emerged from other philosophers? If yes, then she was therefore more akin to a scientist than to an artist, in developing Objectivism as a philosophical system. (No one questions that her novels were artistic creations.) Thus: If you write a novel, or compose a symphony, YOU GET TO PUT YOUR NAME ON IT, and you get to insist that NO ONE CAN CHANGE IT IN ANY WAY. You are an artist. But if you make a scientific discovery, you get no special "naming rights" for something that someone else would sooner or later have independently discovered. (Imagine Leibnitz and Newton, both fighting over the names "Leibnizian calculus" vs. "Newtonian calculus"!) To develop the Leibnitz/Newton calculus point: If ONE of them had discovered calculus and taught it to the other, would it then have been appropriate for the discoverer to insist on "naming rights", (i.e., "Newtonian calculus")? "But Rand was a philosopher, not a scientist", you say? Consider: Is philosophy more akin to science, or more akin to art? If philosophy is just my spewing out my feelings, then maybe it is akin to art (perhaps bad art, but still: art). But if philosophy is purported to be about identifying true things about the world, in that way it is much closer to science. And if philosophical truths are likely to be discovered (NOT "created"), eventually, by SOME philosopher, then the Leibnitz/Newton calculus example is on-point. **You don't get to insist that someone call it by a different name, if they believe they have found improvements on calculus.** All you can justifiably say is, Your new ideas are wrong--about CALCULUS." You don't get to say: Don't CALL IT calculus at all. Or consider: non-Euclidean geometry. It is different from Euclidean geometry, for sure: but it is still geometry. Likewise, I think we could have a non-Randian Objectivism, that would still be Objectivism. Consider: At what point would it be justified to say that "non-Euclidian geometry" is so radically different from Euclidian geometry, that you are justified in saying: YOU ARE CAUSING CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION BY INSISTING ON CALLING YOUR NEW GEOMETRY IDEAS--ideas you have added to Euclid's--"Geometry"? ********************************************************************* Who gets to be labeled "Christian"? There are hundreds of differing denominations of Christian churches. I don't think this causes too much confusion, trying to understand what "Christianity" really is. They ALL call themselves "Christians". Biddle drew a false dichotomy: that either "Objectivism" is just exactly and only Rand's specific notions, OR: "Objectivism" just means any old thing you want it to mean. (A kind of nominalism, perhaps? "Objectivism means whatever I arbitrarily say it is!") But Christianity does not mean: "any old thing I want it to mean". We have no trouble understanding "I am a Christian", whether the Pope says it, or Jerry Falwell says it. THERE IS NO CONFUSION, grasping what "Christian" means. Do I have to say, "I'm a Brandenian Objectivist"? Or, "I'm a Peikoffian Objectivist"? I do not believe that, per Rand's Razor, we are required to create such new concepts. Simply, "I am an Objectivist" was true when N. & B Branden said it after 1968. It was true when David Kelley said it after (whatever year that split occurred). If I believe Satan is Lord, and Jesus was just a sorry clown, I CANNOT label myself a Christian; though people as widely separated in theological beliefs as the Pope and Jerry Falwell can still be "Christians". If a fellow Objectivist has false ideas, rather than saying, "Don't call yourself an Objectivist", you need to say, "Your ideas are wrong, and are not consistent with Objectivism". ***************************************** Would Rand have accepted it if some group took SOME of her ideas, added their own, credited Rand for the ideas they did take from her, and DID NOT call themselves "Objectivists"? That is what Rand would prefer, right? Well, when one group did exactly that, (remember: crediting Rand for the ideas learned from her), she said they PLAGIARIZED HER IDEAS!! ("Plagiarizing her ideas" while crediting her for those same ideas? Rand was not rational in saying that.) Of course, I am referring to the Libertarian Party. It was fine for Rand to criticize the Libertarian Party. But they did exactly what Rand SAID she wanted people to do: They did not call it the "Objectivism Party" or the "Rand Party"--and they were happy to talk about how Rand's ideas inspired them. She accused them of "plagiarizing her ideas"!! Rand didn't grasp: If you properly credit your sources, (they did), and do not represent yourself as speaking for Rand or Objectivism, (they did not falsely represent themselves), that falls under the very definition of "fair use". To quote Rand: “There are sundry 'libertarians' who plagiarize the Objectivist theory of politics, while rejecting the metaphysics, epistemology and ethics on which it rests” (The Ayn Rand Letter, 28 January 1974) Notice Rand's stolen concept: "Plagiarize the Objectivist theory of politics". In fact, they "plagiarized" nothing: they were merely saying, they accept Rand's political positions, but not necessarily any other part of her philosophy. Being careful to differentiate what you accept and what you reject from Rand, and not calling yourself "The Objectivism Party", is not plagiarism. This was not an innocent "mistake", by Rand. **************************************** Another problem with definitions of terms: the term "capitalism", as understood by Leonard Peikoff: (I think this addresses a point that Biddle should have considered.) Peikoff, in his "analytic-synthetic dichotomy" paper, talked about a professor who blamed capitalism for coercive monopolies, in history. Peikoff argued back, as I understood it, that we didn't have genuine capitalism, and that thus we can't blame coercive monopolies on capitalism. This gets to a problem with Biddle's position on properly defining concepts, because I see Peikoff here making the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. (No *genuine* capitalist system would have allowed coercive monopolies--therefore, IT WASN"T GENUINE CAPITALISM.) If your definition of the term "capitalism" is such that no negative thing about it could conceivably be found, (because then it wouldn't be "Genuine" capitalism), then you are making capitalism all good BY DEFINITION. Is Biddle committing the "No true Objectivist" fallacy? Let's ponder that. Thanks.
If you guys toss me 5 bucks, I'll take 5 minutes to take the hiss of your audio before posting a historic debate. Don't mean to be harsh but like damn.
* TIME HAS RUN OUT !! John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Don't ignore this message !! REPENT NOW !! God the Son - JESUS came in the flesh to die for sinners. TRUST that God raised JESUS from the dead !! By FAITH accept JESUS's blood alone as payment for your sins unto Salvation, to escape what's about to happen !! Don't say you were not warned !! ONLY true believers in JESUS will be suddenly taken. THEN comes 7 horrific years of God's JUDGEMENT, poured out on the world. I pray that the LORD will open your eyes and heart to the GOSPEL.
For some reason Objectivists in their various factions don't want to talk the philosophy's real problem: Rand's novels and a lot of the supporting media present Objectivism as a kind of transhumanist software upgrade for the human mind, like something out of science fiction. Perhaps it wouldn't work in the cartoonish way like in the movie _Limitless,_ but Objectivists who install and use the philosophy correctly should stand out as noticeably enhanced against the human baseline, again, if the philosophy worked according the way it is implicitly shown in the Objectivist media. Instead, in the real world, many Rand obsessives are pretty ordinary, while other people who become successful didn't need Rand's help. Objectivists criticize Christianity a lot, for example, so how can they explain the existence of the multimillionaire financial advisor Dave Ramsey, who is an evangelical Christian? Or more interestingly, given how many Objectivists lately, like that Greek fellow in the UK, are denouncing "tribalism," how can they explain the fact that in the United States, at least, tribally-oriented South Asian immigrants are flourishing as entrepreneurs and capitalists, especially in the hotel business? Just witness one of their community weddings, and you'll notice that everyone there is part of an extended family, which is the definition of a tribe. They are simply not living as Ayn-Randian atomized individualists, and their system is working regardless.
Objectivism vs. objectivism. or Randianism vs. falsifible set of rational thoughts or Reality based dogma vs. real life. Capital O objectivism sucks just as much as Capital C critical theory.
Objectivism is indeed "closed" which makes it a religion (ironically enough), and ensures it remains false. It's fine for Ayn Rand to have a cut following, I suppose, but that takes me out of the game. There are plenty of more serious thinkers out there.
@@KRGruner then please tell me how your comment follows from anything in the debate. Otherwise you're deliberately engaging in the fallacy of equivocation on the word "closed."
A big thank-you to Stephen Hicks for engaging in the debate, to Ayn Rand Center Europe for hosting it, and to NICON participants for their active-mindedness and great questions.
Altruism = taught to every kid raised religious. Without ever using the word altruism.
This quote by Ayn Rand (in introduction to "The Objectivist Forum", 1980) may be relevant here:
«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). […] 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 any flights of fancy you wish, on your own.»
That's conclusive.
I see what you wrote as giving the most accurate explanation on the topic question
wow, she's so dismissive of evolution and improvement -- it's a like cult😯
@@victor_rybin its nothing like a cult 🤦🏻♂️
@@victor_rybin wow that’s what you got out of that? So when Led Zeppelin retires and they all die and they ask that nobody write music under their name it’s a cult?
She’s saying that if you make any improvements or expand upon objectivism, just don’t call whatever you do “objectivism“. Objectivism is what she calls her philosophical ideas. It doesn’t mean you can’t make improvements or changes. You just can’t call it objectivism
I like Dr. Hicks’s analogy with the way we treat Newtonian physics, but I think it may hurt his case.
Newtonian physics is almost always in reference to both the content, his optics and mechanics, but often also the form, ray diagrams and differentials applied to mass points in physical space. People built on top of this, integrated it with other fields of science, and invented different useful mathematical systems, but they don’t get categorized under Newtonian physics.
A good example of this is the d’Alembert system, which is a mathematical system that allows for Newtonian mechanics to be applied to continuums, ie wave mechanics. Typically these would get classified under Mechanics, but later “classical mechanics.”
So I think with Objectivism you need to identify which parts, whether ideas, concepts, theories, arguments, etc are core to the philosophy. And in that sense it’s closed, just like Newtonian physics is. It’s an integrated whole developed by Rand which can serve as a basis for further development.
But things that may be later discovered to be incorrect dont pose an issue because if it’s wrong it won’t actually integrate with the rest of the body of work, and in that regard get conceptually parsed out.
This is what happened with Newton’s theory of light. While his corpuscular theory gets mentioned for historical context and within the rationale of the development of the science, it doesn’t get captured in Newtonian physics since it’s a nonessential part.
There’s probably similarities here with the way we treat Aristotle’s work w.r.t. Aristotelianism.
But something like Rand’s “crow epistemology” is not similar in that regard. Aristotle’s Platonic remnants don’t integrate with the core elements of his work, thus don’t get incorporated into Aristotelianism.
The crow theory and measurement omission parts of Rand’s epistemology are absolutely fundamental, being the basis of the need and the process of abstraction and concept formation, and her aesthetics, etc.
If you think those are wrong, then Objectivism is wrong and a new system should be erected. This would be like rejecting the concept of the material ether and theory of inertia; whether you agree with that or not (I don’t) you’d have to reject Newtonian physics and create a new system based on different core ideas, which is what Einstein and then Bohr, Heisenberg, etc did.
This last example is a good thought point, being that both Relativity and Quantum physics use Newtons equations (pragmatically), but they aren’t built on top of Newtonian physics, they don’t integrate with it, and thus the creation of the term “classical physics” that encompasses logical theories of the physics of the material world, which Newtonian physics is a part, but the systems of Modern physics are not.
Basically, what are we calling Newton‘s ideas? His ideas. People still came along and improved upon them or had different ideas, but they did not call it Newtonian physics.
It's a closed system. If you open it, it's no longer objectivism. It's something else.
Agreed. I also think it's useful for people to clearly define that 'something else' , especially if it's compatible with and/or built upon objectivism.
I really like the idea of naming it by the author and it becoming closed once the author dies. It makes it all very clear, while still allowing people to build upon ideas so to progress philosophy as a whole
Objectivism. Proper name.
Nicely done, Craig. Your most incisive points were the statements that it doesn’t matter whether Ayn Rand was right or whether she covered everything. It only matters what she said. That is hers. That is a Objectivism. End of subject. Closed. Thanks.
You can’t end or close a subject as long as as someone else wants to keep talking about it. You can only close your mind.
Great debate on a very specific issue! Hands down Craig won
this debate! Well done Craig!
A lot of great points, big thanks to Craig and Stephen for participating!
"Objectivism is closed, but philosophy is open" as Onkhar said.
As far as the question of being open or closed it is closed insofar as the original philosophy by it's name Objectivism. Stephen made very good points in terms of the fact that no single philosophy is entirely complete and that a philosophy is open in the sense that it leaves room for further development, but it needs to be clearly stated where Ayn Rand's philosophy ends and where the furtherance begins and should not be termed Objectivism
Thanks Craig & Stephen for an excellent discussion on this topic.
For me, I’m more convinced by Craig’s reasoning.
It’s irrelevant, in this context, whether Objectivism is correct or complete. It is also irrelevant whether it should be questioned or not, though of course it should be.
Before someone can add/subtract/modify from Objectivism one must first know precisely what it is to begin with. It’s only because Objectivism is closed that it can be meaningfully developed further (but it can no longer be called Objectivism.)
Whether it’s objectivism vs philosophical-truths, Euclidean-geometry vs geometry, Newtonian-physics vs physics or Marxist-socialism vs socialism, the former is closed and the latter is open. If mathematicians, physicists, and Marxists have failed to treat it as such, that’s a mistake they need to fix, not a pattern we need to import here (especially given that they don’t have the correct theory of concept formation to help them.)
Ultimately, due to lack of sufficient meaningful vocabulary, I suppose the following naming convention may have some merit: Rand’s philosophy (Objectivism) vs Rand-Peikoff’s philosophy vs Rand-Peikoff-Binswanger-Craig’s philosophy and so on. At some point it just terminates with every person’s individual philosophy.
All that matters is: Does Ayn Rand's philosophy cover everything and anything new is not inductively new, but rather deduced, or did she miss something such that we must compromise with another philosophy or theology? The answer is no. Objectivism is closed because it cannot share the truth with other philosophies or religions.
Why not refer to the works of Peikoff, Binswanger, et. al. as Post-Objectivist philosophy. It distinguishes it from Objectivism proper while connecting it to the philosophical basis from whence it came? Since it is not the name of a particular system as such but a generic term for philosophical development arising from Rand's ideas it can even allow for different philosophers with different/conflicting interpretation of those ideas.
@@ExistenceUniversity no that is not the issue. The issue is: objectivism is her philosophy, right or wrong, and any improvements or additions or expansions cannot be called objectivism.
@@stefanburns3797 no
I like Stephen Hicks, but he didn't score a single point here. Objectivism is not something you do, it is a describable set of ideas. Philosophy is what you do, but he seems to want to make the "doing" of philosophy based on Rand into objectivism, when it needn't be and for clarity's sake shouldn't be. Why confuse this easy issue unless there is another motive?
I actually got the feeling that Stephen didn't totally agree with the side he was debating for.
Dr. Hicks teaches Rand's philosophy as a realist philosophy in the same vein as Aristotleanism and other 'primacy of existence' philosophers, as distinct from other types.
His motive is probably to integrate their philosophies into a predictable model. "Realistst view the world in a particular way."
Professor Hicks is the most well-read philosopher of our time with a clear and correct understanding.
Very confused as to why Hicks thinks it being closed has anything to do with it being complete or totally correct. These don’t seem at all related to me and everyone on the closed side seems to agree it’s not complete and that it being totally correct or not has nothing to do with this. What an odd digression from the actual matter.
It is terribly bad reasoning. I used to find Hicks respectable, even though I thought his association with the abhorrent Atlas Society odd and suspect.
In his explanation, completeness is not necessary for art; a creation of an individual, but it is the standard for a science; a methodology for discovering reality.
Dr. Hicks seemed to be building a case that Ayn Rand's books are her art but that her purpose of her art was to encourage an independent relationship between an individual and reality, not an individual and her art.
If Ayn Rand's goal was to treat philosophy as a science, then she would not want people to limit their understanding to her works alone. Objectivism is open and still under development.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 I’m not saying I’m on the closed side, but that is an absurd straw man of it. The closed side has never been about not being open to understanding new things. The debate literally began with Peikoff saying he had his own new understandings, come on! And it comes off incredibly dishonest to say that that is what the open side is about when the closed side fully endorses it and always has. That cannot be what the disagreement is about when both sides fully agree on it. Let’s stick to the actual debate which is whether those new understandings are part of Objectivism or not.
@Francesca Serrecchia I think you are ultimately right. Many of us view Objectivism as a blueprint for validation of knowledge. We are like a man with a hammer, seeing everything as a nail.
In reality Rand said that her philosophy was inductive. All knowledge is inductive.
"Is it true" isn't proven by testing it against axioms or principles. "Is it true" is proven by observation.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 Philosophy, qua science, is of course “open” in the sense we’re using the term. But it is beyond debate whether Objectivism, which is a term used simply to denote Rand’s philosophy, is closed. And she was very clear on the matter, so you’re wrong to imply that she would be on the “open” side.
Two part question for Prof. Hicks: 1) What is Existentialism? 2) Who is its founder?
For Craig Biddle: What is the name of Aristotle's philosophy? Or Kant's? (Not the name of their particular works).
Question 1. Is addressing differences individuals can have in the application of the ideas of Objectivism as created by Ayn Rand a different question than the theme for this debate? For example - 2. Was Nathaniel Branden's work changing Rands's philosophy or developing and clarifying how to apply objectivism in the face of life's challenges? Could this be the difference between the open and closed disagreement What Vs How?
After listening to the debate and reading through the comments here, I appealed to my final authority (to paraphrase Craig) -- the requirements of my cognitive apparatus -- and concluded that the distinction between open and closed Objectivism is clear and meaningful to me so that I don't feel "muddled" and therefore will continue to use these terms to contextualize past and future contributions to the field. Consider this: Scholars make contextual comments to distinguish between Aristotle's philosophical writings and those of others in the Aristotelian tradition. When I read or hear the terms Aristotelianism, Platonism, Thomism, etc., I recognize these terms may very well refer to something other than what is found in the writings of Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, etc.
The fact that this debate exists should tell you everything.
I think Biddle had the better presentation and argument. The major points that Hicks starts off with were all mistakes, and he lost me almost immediately. Objectivism isn't a science, anymore than relativity is a science. Physic, chemistry, biology are all sciences but evolution or relativity are scientific theories. Similarly, Rand talks about ethics or epistemology as sciences but Objectivism is a philosophical system (sometimes referred to as a philosophy), not a science. He then goes on to waste time talking about patents and copyrights, both of which are irrelevant since they don't apply and because no one has ever claimed they should apply to Objectivism!
What is the definition of "science?" Last I heard, philosophy is the 'Queen of the sciences.'
@@Steelpeachandtozer what's being referred to here is the distinction between science-the-process and products-of-science, the latter often casually also being called science. Objectivism is a products-of-science, not a process of thought, although Objectivist epistemology would give you advice on how to think more clearly. Just as relativity is a theory although you could apply it to other problems in physics/engineering.
Regarding Rand's definition of "life" as a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action: if chemistry finds a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action that is not considered alive, such as a particular chemical reaction, would this fact negate Rand's definition of "life"?
If Objectivism is a closed system, then finding non-living self-sustaining and self-generated action would not contradict Rand's definition of "life."
However, if Objectivism is an open system, then it is open to change based on new evidence. And in the light of this new evidence from chemistry, Objectivism would be forced to rethink its definition of "life."
according to Rand's objectivism any definition is only needed to distinguish one concept from others, and if it stops doing it -- you can change the definition. e.g., for a baby, a valid definition of a _"man"_ would be _"a moving loud object"_ , untill the baby encounters cars and animals
@@victor_rybin True. I'm just pointing out that Objectivists treat such definitions as absolute, when they are not. And they will continue to treat the definition of "life" as absolute until Leonard Peikoff says otherwise. As a chemist, he should know that chemical reactions exist which demonstrate self-sustaining and self-generated action. Also, it would be necessary to include the fact that life evolves, except Rand didn't believe in evolution so that will never happen.
Didn’t Ayn Rand say that every word, name, or label is the final point of concept formation with the necessary methodology of observation and induction before the final point? If we think of it this way, then we can say Objectivism as the name of the philosophy developed by Ayn Rand was chosen and used because it is the final point of concept formation and the appropriate name of the systematic philosophy that was developed by Rand’s observations and abstractions of the fundamental elements in Objectivism. If we agree on and fully grasp the fundamentals and axioms of Objectivism, as a name or label, then any further developments and explanations should still be recognized as the same thing, given that the fundamentals are not tweaked. For example, if we all agree on what the fundamental elements should be to constitute the concept of a table, any further changes or expansions, let’s say styles and colors, won’t really matter, as long as we don’t change the fundamental elements that are key to identifying a table. With that, I don’t see why Craig is so worried about adding things to Objectivism will change it so dramatically and make it a chaos. It will still be clear what Objectivism is if the fundamentals are untouched.
Another interesting thought is what if Ayn Rand passed away after she developed her theory of ethics and before her theory of epidemiology, and called her philosophy Objectivism already? And say a person later used her theory of ethics to develop what today we’ll call the Objectivist epistemology. In that case, should that person’s new expansion be called Objectivism, because it is reasonable to assume that had Ayn Rand lived longer to see his work, she would agree with his ideas.
I had the same question. If new knowledge integrates with Rand's philosophy but occurred after she died, is it not a logical conclusion to her premises? If that is not the case, then Objectivism has nothing to say on the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1991.
I didn't get to watch this when it first came out, but I'm finally caught up. I had always assumed that Objectivism was a closed system, but this talk enhanced my clarity on the subject. Stephen Hicks is correct in noting that philosophy is a science, but I think he makes a mistake by conflating the practice of science with a specific set of ideas. For example, Archimedes' Principle is an idea that is arrived at by practicing science. It is not the practice of science. It is a principle resulting from science. So too, Objectivism is a system of ideas that were generated through the practice of philosophy. Newton's Laws are not Archimedes' Principle, nor vice versa. Both are ideas resulting from the practice of science, but they are not the same thing. They are separate, and they deserve to be thought of separately, even when they are both used in concert.
Objectivism is a system of Rational Egoism. Rational Egoism is a virtue-based framework for defining ones character and behavior based on adhering to a set of fundamental principles within an integrated set of virtues; (RIPJIPH) rationality, independence, productivity, justice, integrity, pride, honesty. Objectivism does not necessarily preclude any other systems of Rational Egoism. The way that people think about religion seems to set them up to make false assumptions about Rational Egoism. Religion is a subset of philosophy, which has Faith in a higher power as its base premise. Religion is generally exclusive. You pick one to the exclusion of all others. Every secular form of philosophy exists outside of the subset of philosophy known as religion. Humanism, Socialism, Existentialism, Pragmatism, Marxism and the majority of secular philosophies are also exclusive. Each new set gets a new name. None of these other philosophies are fully compatible with one another. This is because they are based on assertions rather than on empiricism. Rational Egoism is different.
The subset of Rational Egoism as defined by Ayn Rand is the system that she named Objectivism. It is not comprehensive, but it is based on truth. Being of an empirical nature allows for truths defined within Objectivism to align with other truths not contained within the system of Ayn Rand. Truth is specific. A thing either is, or it is not. A is A. A is not non-A. Objectivism is also something specific. However, time and space are infinite, and therefore the truths that may exist within time and space may also be infinite. Religion says that God is the answer to everything, so you should stop asking questions and have Faith. Rational Egoism posits that we don't know all the answers, but that they are discoverable. Objectivism says, here are the things that Ayn Rand figured out. Use them or don't. There are any number of truths which might integrate with Objectivism. If Ayn Rand didn't figure them out, then they are not part of her system. If you figured them out, then they are part of your system. Ayn Rand is not a demi-God, and neither are any of us. She deserves credit for what she achieved, just as you deserve credit for what you achieve. If you can write it in a book and publish it, then you can formally name your own set of philosophical truths.
“For all her popularity, however, only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. As a result, most of the serious philosophical work on Rand has appeared in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed journals, or in books, and the bibliography reflects this fact.”
“Whereas Rand’s ideas and mode of presentation make Rand popular with many non-academics, they lead to the opposite outcome with academics. She developed some of her views in response to questions from her readers, but seldom took the time to defend them against possible objections or to reconcile them with the views expressed in her novels. Her philosophical essays lack the self-critical, detailed style of analytic philosophy, or any serious attempt to consider possible objections to her views. Her polemical style, often contemptuous tone, and the dogmatism and cult-like behavior of many of her fans also suggest that her work is not worth taking seriously.”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
As I see it, Craig won this debate, but Stephen still raises a valid concern about dogmatism
There are a few people in the movement that treat it as dogma, but objectivism itself is not dogmatic.
Is there a trascript of this discussion? If so, please let me know how to find it. Thanks.
I think this dialog presents an interesting question. Craig Biddle spoke on the content of Objectivism and Stephen Hicks spoke on the form overtaking the content.
If Ayn Rand's content, her writings, are true to her philosophy's form, the methodology, shouldn't further non-condradictory content which fits her methodology be taken as a logical conclusion to her premises?
One day we may come into contact with an immortal robot. Would Rand's philosophy be able to predict whether or not such a being could have values, emotions, or self-esteem?
Objectivism isn't a form. Reason would be the form that is used by Objectivism. But reason is not exclusive to Objectivism so claiming that anything that follows reason is part of Objectivism would make little sense.
@Ian Gilmore @Ian Gilmore science>philosophy>epistemology>reason>conceptualization>essentialism
Knowledge is hierarchical. There are many forms of reason and conceptualization which would contradict Rand's philosophy. Essentialism is a small subset of a subset within reason, which as you said is not exclusive to Objectivism but does make Objectivism particular.
I can see why Craig said that allowing a subset to define its category (frozen abstraction) can lead to errors. I was ALMOST going to say that ITOE was the form/method of Objectivism, but I need to chew on this a little longer.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 There cannot be an immoral robot nor could such a thing live, and that's because Objectivism is closed, aka correct and it's philosophy cannot be compromised by magic as magic doesn't exist.
All truths are non-contradictory. That would make everything Objectivism. Objectivism is only the set of ideas Rand laid out and any obvious deductions from them. No more inductive truths can be added under that label.
@@YashArya01 Yeah, it's like trying to say you found something more true than the truth lol
Although Biddle had great points, he openly conceded the point. Rand does not own it, it can be expounded upon with more concepts that integrate with Oist axioms. That's the whole discussion.
Enjoyed this debate greatly. Both gentlemen were excellent.
Personally, I was most persuaded by the Stephen Hicks approach/argument.
However, I would have liked to hear some specific examples/illustrations from each speaker of what is "open" and what is "closed" -- using specific quotes expressing Ayn Rand's fundamental ideas.
Using examples it would be much easier to understand the extent of their actual disagreement -- which might not be as big as it looked by the end of the session.
I discussed the debate at the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature Blog
I haven't been there in a long time.
Friday, October 25, 2024
Retouching Rand (by Neil Parille)
A number of Objectivists still think smoking is okay, and deny Barbara's claim that Rand quit in 1975.
Craig Biddle's philosophy is definitely a philosophy to be followed by librarians and achivists. There are only finite number of words in any language and old words get reused in different contexts and redefined over time. Philosophers can't stop this unless they become absolute dictators, but they can curate and help protect the language against concepts with implicit or explicit contradictions.
So amusing that these people think that reality is something you simply identify. It's all as easy as that.
The objectivism cult is so funny!
Very nice.
Ayn Rand copies Marx in her claims that her philosophy is a science. Marx was formulating his corpus when the social sciences and humanities were coalescing into the fields they have become today, and before science had codified its methodology. So, Marx can be forgiven. What is Rand's excuse, other than being a complete ignoramus and hypocrite (she was on the dole at the end of her life)?
>>>she was on the dole at the end of her life
What dole?
If they'd worn the same colour suit I'd have been in real trouble.
Mr. Hicks could lay the whole issue to rest by agreeing to simply add properly-labeled commentaries to Objectivism but not to incorporate anything into Objectivism. Problem solved.
This is from Nathaniel Branden:
"David Kelley drew to my attention something I wrote in the Objectivist in April, 1965 - “A Message to Our Readers.” I wrote:
“In the future, when Objectivism has become an intellectual and cultural movement on a wider scale, when a variety of authors have written books dealing with some aspect of the Objectivist philosophy - it could be appropriate for those in agreement to describe themselves as ‘Objectivists.’ However, at present, when the name is so intimately associated with Rand and me, it is not. At present, a person who is in agreement with our philosophy should describe himself, not as an Objectivist, but as a student or supporter of Objectivism.”
Today I regret that second sentence as inappropriate and stultifying, but note the implications of the first sentence, which, I assure you, had Rand’s full knowledge and approval. (Everything in our publication was edited by her.) We were clearly projecting a future when “Objectivism” would cover far more than the writings of Rand.
If, later, Rand pulled back from that vision, it was for reasons more emotional than philosophical, and one can feel compassion for her suffering, but still… she was right the first time and wrong the second."
nathanielbranden.com/who-is-an-objectivist/
Nonsense, Nathaniel Branden stating she was right the first time is meaningless. First he claims co-ownership of her philosophy and than he says take my word she had full knowledge and approval within those two paragraphs. Why would anyone believe anything he had to say. He is not credible…
@@pfarias You don't have to take Branden's word for it. The reason he, Greenspan & Robert Hessen's writings that were approved by her are considered to be "Objectivism" is because she reviewed everything printed in those newsletters to make sure she approved. Are you suggesting that he slipped that in the newsletter past her and she never thought to publicly correct it? That's nonsense.
Nonsense, that is a fallacy of logic 🤣. Your rebuttal does not address the issue. He is a proven liar how would he know or even have a mind capable of knowing her reasons?
@@pfarias He had a mind capable of writing essays that are part of "Objectivism". You are using the "he's a proven liar" to ignore that she approved everything that went into anything with her name on it in her lifetime. There's evidence of that all in her letters, and even asking any of the "old guard" would confirm. You just don't want to have to admit that her view changed after the '68 split.
Scot, I guess you are not getting my point or maybe I have not been clear? If she changed her mind so what. I am disputing the liars motives and therefore the relevance. “If later, Rand pulled back from that vision, it was for reasons more emotional than philosophical, and one can feel compassion for her suffering, but still… she was right the first time and wrong the second.” 🤣 what a putz, total nonsense
Open or closed, our misrulers are not threatened by Objectivists in the least. That's why you guys can engage in Objectivist theater like denouncing Immanuel Kant all you want without running the risk of being canceled. The people in power are just not invested in Kant's reputation.
Rather an interesting modification of Marxism. Does not sound like cultural Marxism
Hicks has the better argument. Rand clearly saw her philosophical work as creating a concept, not a particular. She clarified many concepts: capitalism, egoism, objectivity, etc. And integrated the whole. The original formulation should be called just that, the original formulation.
I want to address the distinction that Hicks made early on, which I found to be brilliant: Rand as artist vs. Rand as "scientist".
A great paper from the 1970s I recommend is: "Prematurity and Uniqueness in Scientific Discovery", by Gunther Stent. One question Stent raises is: what is the difference between scientific genius vs. artistic genius? He directly poses the question, "are scientific creations any less unique than artistic creations?" He answers that, yes, they are, with the following argument. (Below, I will tie this all in with Rand.)
If Shakespeare or Picasso had never lived, those specific great masterpieces that they created would never have been created. However, for any great scientist, sooner or later someone else would have discovered what they discovered. In fact, the book by Peter Bowler, a Darwin scholar, titled: "Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World Without Darwin", argues that sooner or later, (though perhaps many decades later), something resembling "Darwinism", though under another name, would surely have appeared, even if Darwin had never existed.
(Alfred Russel Wallace's discoveries were very similar to Darwin's in key aspects, but Darwin's arguments in "Origin of Species" were way more deeply and fully developed than what Wallace would have ever been able to match. Put another way: though Wallace was a brilliant man, he could not have put together anything like the "one long argument" that Darwin offered in "Origin of Species"-- that massive integration of highly disparate data that showed the power of the notion of Natural Selection. Thus, Wallace was no substitute for Darwin, even though they both converged on the basic idea of Natural Selection.)
If neither Shakespeare nor Darwin had ever lived, we would never have "King Lear" or "Hamlet"; but we would surely have something resembling "Darwinism". Or as Stent put it (paraphrasing): if Watson and Crick had never been born, someone would still have, sooner or later, discovered the DNA double-helix.
Now imagine: If we say that Rand was akin to a scientist, but had died young or had never been born, would something resembling what we now know as "Objectivism"--though by a different name, have emerged from other philosophers? If yes, then she was therefore more akin to a scientist than to an artist, in developing Objectivism as a philosophical system. (No one questions that her novels were artistic creations.)
Thus: If you write a novel, or compose a symphony, YOU GET TO PUT YOUR NAME ON IT, and you get to insist that NO ONE CAN CHANGE IT IN ANY WAY. You are an artist. But if you make a scientific discovery, you get no special "naming rights" for something that someone else would sooner or later have independently discovered. (Imagine Leibnitz and Newton, both fighting over the names "Leibnizian calculus" vs. "Newtonian calculus"!)
To develop the Leibnitz/Newton calculus point: If ONE of them had discovered calculus and taught it to the other, would it then have been appropriate for the discoverer to insist on "naming rights", (i.e., "Newtonian calculus")?
"But Rand was a philosopher, not a scientist", you say? Consider: Is philosophy more akin to science, or more akin to art? If philosophy is just my spewing out my feelings, then maybe it is akin to art (perhaps bad art, but still: art). But if philosophy is purported to be about identifying true things about the world, in that way it is much closer to science.
And if philosophical truths are likely to be discovered (NOT "created"), eventually, by SOME philosopher, then the Leibnitz/Newton calculus example is on-point. **You don't get to insist that someone call it by a different name, if they believe they have found improvements on calculus.** All you can justifiably say is, Your new ideas are wrong--about CALCULUS." You don't get to say: Don't CALL IT calculus at all.
Or consider: non-Euclidean geometry. It is different from Euclidean geometry, for sure: but it is still geometry. Likewise, I think we could have a non-Randian Objectivism, that would still be Objectivism. Consider: At what point would it be justified to say that "non-Euclidian geometry" is so radically different from Euclidian geometry, that you are justified in saying: YOU ARE CAUSING CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION BY INSISTING ON CALLING YOUR NEW GEOMETRY IDEAS--ideas you have added to Euclid's--"Geometry"?
*********************************************************************
Who gets to be labeled "Christian"? There are hundreds of differing denominations of Christian churches. I don't think this causes too much confusion, trying to understand what "Christianity" really is. They ALL call themselves "Christians".
Biddle drew a false dichotomy: that either "Objectivism" is just exactly and only Rand's specific notions, OR: "Objectivism" just means any old thing you want it to mean. (A kind of nominalism, perhaps? "Objectivism means whatever I arbitrarily say it is!") But Christianity does not mean: "any old thing I want it to mean". We have no trouble understanding "I am a Christian", whether the Pope says it, or Jerry Falwell says it. THERE IS NO CONFUSION, grasping what "Christian" means. Do I have to say, "I'm a Brandenian Objectivist"? Or, "I'm a Peikoffian Objectivist"? I do not believe that, per Rand's Razor, we are required to create such new concepts. Simply, "I am an Objectivist" was true when N. & B Branden said it after 1968. It was true when David Kelley said it after (whatever year that split occurred).
If I believe Satan is Lord, and Jesus was just a sorry clown, I CANNOT label myself a Christian; though people as widely separated in theological beliefs as the Pope and Jerry Falwell can still be "Christians". If a fellow Objectivist has false ideas, rather than saying, "Don't call yourself an Objectivist", you need to say, "Your ideas are wrong, and are not consistent with Objectivism".
*****************************************
Would Rand have accepted it if some group took SOME of her ideas, added their own, credited Rand for the ideas they did take from her, and DID NOT call themselves "Objectivists"? That is what Rand would prefer, right?
Well, when one group did exactly that, (remember: crediting Rand for the ideas learned from her), she said they PLAGIARIZED HER IDEAS!! ("Plagiarizing her ideas" while crediting her for those same ideas? Rand was not rational in saying that.) Of course, I am referring to the Libertarian Party.
It was fine for Rand to criticize the Libertarian Party. But they did exactly what Rand SAID she wanted people to do: They did not call it the "Objectivism Party" or the "Rand Party"--and they were happy to talk about how Rand's ideas inspired them. She accused them of "plagiarizing her ideas"!!
Rand didn't grasp: If you properly credit your sources, (they did), and do not represent yourself as speaking for Rand or Objectivism, (they did not falsely represent themselves), that falls under the very definition of "fair use". To quote Rand: “There are sundry 'libertarians' who plagiarize the Objectivist theory of politics, while rejecting the metaphysics, epistemology and ethics on which it rests” (The Ayn Rand Letter, 28 January 1974)
Notice Rand's stolen concept: "Plagiarize the Objectivist theory of politics". In fact, they "plagiarized" nothing: they were merely saying, they accept Rand's political positions, but not necessarily any other part of her philosophy. Being careful to differentiate what you accept and what you reject from Rand, and not calling yourself "The Objectivism Party", is not plagiarism. This was not an innocent "mistake", by Rand.
****************************************
Another problem with definitions of terms: the term "capitalism", as understood by Leonard Peikoff:
(I think this addresses a point that Biddle should have considered.)
Peikoff, in his "analytic-synthetic dichotomy" paper, talked about a professor who blamed capitalism for coercive monopolies, in history. Peikoff argued back, as I understood it, that we didn't have genuine capitalism, and that thus we can't blame coercive monopolies on capitalism.
This gets to a problem with Biddle's position on properly defining concepts, because I see Peikoff here making the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. (No *genuine* capitalist system would have allowed coercive monopolies--therefore, IT WASN"T GENUINE CAPITALISM.) If your definition of the term "capitalism" is such that no negative thing about it could conceivably be found, (because then it wouldn't be "Genuine" capitalism), then you are making capitalism all good BY DEFINITION.
Is Biddle committing the "No true Objectivist" fallacy? Let's ponder that.
Thanks.
If you guys toss me 5 bucks, I'll take 5 minutes to take the hiss of your audio before posting a historic debate.
Don't mean to be harsh but like damn.
* TIME HAS RUN OUT !! John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Don't ignore this message !! REPENT NOW !! God the Son - JESUS came in the flesh to die for sinners. TRUST that God raised JESUS from the dead !! By FAITH accept JESUS's blood alone as payment for your sins unto Salvation, to escape what's about to happen !! Don't say you were not warned !! ONLY true believers in JESUS will be suddenly taken. THEN comes 7 horrific years of God's JUDGEMENT, poured out on the world. I pray that the LORD will open your eyes and heart to the GOSPEL.
For some reason Objectivists in their various factions don't want to talk the philosophy's real problem: Rand's novels and a lot of the supporting media present Objectivism as a kind of transhumanist software upgrade for the human mind, like something out of science fiction. Perhaps it wouldn't work in the cartoonish way like in the movie _Limitless,_ but Objectivists who install and use the philosophy correctly should stand out as noticeably enhanced against the human baseline, again, if the philosophy worked according the way it is implicitly shown in the Objectivist media.
Instead, in the real world, many Rand obsessives are pretty ordinary, while other people who become successful didn't need Rand's help. Objectivists criticize Christianity a lot, for example, so how can they explain the existence of the multimillionaire financial advisor Dave Ramsey, who is an evangelical Christian? Or more interestingly, given how many Objectivists lately, like that Greek fellow in the UK, are denouncing "tribalism," how can they explain the fact that in the United States, at least, tribally-oriented South Asian immigrants are flourishing as entrepreneurs and capitalists, especially in the hotel business? Just witness one of their community weddings, and you'll notice that everyone there is part of an extended family, which is the definition of a tribe. They are simply not living as Ayn-Randian atomized individualists, and their system is working regardless.
You don't understand Objectivism at all
They think success means money or notoriety. Lol
"tribally-oriented" doesn't get a dash in between. It's "tribally oriented."
@@SaltybuherObjectivists praise immigrants all the time, so what are the South Asian immigrants doing wrong as their real wealth continues to grow?
@@Mal1234567In other words you couldn't find anything substantially wrong in what I originally posted.
Objectivism vs. objectivism.
or Randianism vs. falsifible set of rational thoughts or Reality based dogma vs. real life.
Capital O objectivism sucks just as much as Capital C critical theory.
Objectivism is indeed "closed" which makes it a religion (ironically enough), and ensures it remains false. It's fine for Ayn Rand to have a cut following, I suppose, but that takes me out of the game. There are plenty of more serious thinkers out there.
You didn't see the debate, did you?
@@YashArya01 Yes I did, most of it anyway (I admit at some point it became a total bore).
@@KRGruner then please tell me how your comment follows from anything in the debate. Otherwise you're deliberately engaging in the fallacy of equivocation on the word "closed."
@@KRGruner I would also like to know which of Rand and Peikoff's works have you studied?
@@YashArya01 Wow, pretty obvious YOU didn't listen to the debate!!! Are you kidding?
Isn't it only Americans and teenagers who take Rand's ideas seriously?
No. That's a strawman from a child
Get lost, kid.
I'm neither and I take her seriously. Next.
Brilliant ad hominem. Your social pressure convinced me to conform.