| | Anthony: I think it is rather dishonest to deny Kelley and Sciabarra their claims to at least a voice within Objectivism”
Per: I am not denying anyone a voice. I am just saying that the material Kelley and Scaibarra write is not part of Objectivism, and that they are dishonest if they claim that it is.
Anthony: ...Are we safe from moral reprehension and admonishment (from ARI) if we always state clearly that Sciabarra, Kelley, Branden, Binswanger, Peikoff, Khamy/Torres, Mayhew, Schwartz, Gladstein, etc. are not Objectivists per se since it is a closed system?
Per: An Objectivist is someone who agrees with Objectivism. Peikoff does, Kelley does not. Peikoff says that OPAR is not part of the Objectivist litterature, Kelley says that Unrugged Individualism is part of the Objectivist litterature. Then, Peikoff is an Objectivist, Kelley is not.
Objectivists can of course write about anything, and they do, but an Objectivist does not claim that the philosophical material he writes is part of Objectivism. Doing this is presenting one’s own views as if they were Ayn Rands, and this is dishonest.
Anthony: I guess what I am understanding is that Objectivism is a closed system because given: "feu" Ayn Rand, there is only Randianism? Therefore, I think by extension, your position would either state that heir Peikoff is just as Randian as everyone else, right?
Per: One can say this – a Randian is any philosopher who is influnced by Ayn Rand. But Peikoff agrees with Objectivism, and is then also an Objectivist. Kelley is only a Randian, not an Objectivist.
Anthony: Peikoff legal connection to the estate does not give him or anyone else the right to add or subtract one jot or tiddle to/from the original material. Right? If editing were to occur in a reprint and some words were to be dropped from the original, thus altering an original monograph or other document, would this be an action subject to moral reprehension?
Per: Nice try.
I could have been more exact when I delimited Objectivism. I said that Objectivism is the philosophical system presented in the material Ayn Rand wrote or endorsed, but maybe I should have added: and that was published by her.
This implies that her letters, her journals, her lecture courses, her oral interviews, etc., are not part of the Objectivist litterature, i.e. the philosophical material contained in them is not part of Objectivism.
However, the material in Ominous Parallells and Who is Ayn Rand? are included in the Objectivist litterature, while OPAR is not.
If you want my comments re Harriman’s editing, please ask.
Why is this closed-system-point important? Why “nitpick” and say that OMPA is part of Objectivism and OPAR is not, that Who is Ayn Rand? is part of Objectivism and Letters of Ayn Rand is not?
What happens with open systems? Let me take one example: libertariansim.
Among libertarians we find anarchists, minarchists, minarchists who support forced taxation (Murray Franck), people who support the draft (Mises), welfare-statists (Hayek, Friedman). Whant, then is the libertarian viwe of tha state and the tax? All that there can be (there is even a gruop of libertarian socialistst). What is the libertarian view on the right to abortion? Both. What is the libertarian view on gun-control? Both. What is the libertarian view on copyrights? Both. What is the libertarian view on patents? Both. This is chaotic, but will be the result when systems are regarded as open.
I do not want this to happen to Objectivism. One example that shows that this is about to happen: Even if Objectivism is opposed to forced taxation, Sciabarra says that Murray Franck is an Objectivist.
Regards
Per Hansen
|
|
