| | Mr. DeSalvo: The problem is that 'Objectivism' is the intellectual property of the estate of Ayn Rand. So, much as we would like to co-opt it, 'Objectivism' is not really ours to define.
Mr. Stolyarov: I am glad that we agree on the basic premises within this statement and see the need to actively evaluate and develop Rand's ideas. But, though you wish to undertake this extrapolation, you still seem to view "Objectivism" per se as a "closed system." The word already encompasses a set of fundamental axioms necessary for rational living, but the system as Rand developed it is by no means complete or flawless. I do not think it necessary to draw an artificial distinction between "Objectivism" and "the extrapolations" that rests not on absolute conclusions of logic but on the circumstance that Rand did not live long enough to reach some of the extrapolations herself, as this creates the impression of a disjoint rather than an integrated set of ideas. It is at times necessary to state which ideas directly originated from Rand, and which were devised later (to give due credit to Rand and the later thinkers), but "intellectual property" should not be used to pre-empt the development of an entire field, such as Objectivism. Besides, thinkers such as David Kelley have extensively employed "Objectivism" in their definitions of both Rand's thoughts and newer derivations. Even Kelley's own organization is called The Objectivist Center. Surely you do not think that Kelley is guilty of violating the Rand Estate's intellectual property rights. Here is Kelley's approach to the matter:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/dkelley_objectivism-chapter5-contested-legacy.asp
" In epistemology, for example, the one issue that Ayn Rand dealt with in detail was the nature of concepts and universals. Her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is comparable in its systematic character to the writings of Aristotle or Locke on this question. Beyond a brief suggestion, however, she wrote nothing about the nature of propositions, an issue that is essential for a viable theory of truth. In regard to the senses, her distinction between what we perceive and the form in which we perceive it is the key that solves the traditional puzzles of perception, but using the key is not a trivial matter; a great many subordinate questions must be answered to formulate and validate the distinction properly. Ayn Rand identified the fact that knowledge is hierarchical and contextual, insights that I have relied upon throughout this essay, and that point to the solution of many traditional problems in epistemology. But a pointer is not a solution. Objectivism does not yet have well-developed answers to such questions as what constitutes proof; or how to draw the line between the arbitrary and the false. Nor does it have an adequate theory of induction and scientific explanation.
An analysis of other areas in philosophy would reveal the same pattern: great insights that are partially developed in some directions, not at all in others. If Objectivism is to survive and flourish as a system of thought, it must attract philosophers who will build on Ayn Rand's discoveries, using them as a base for an assault on specific problems in philosophy and drawing out their implications for other disciplines such as economics, psychology, or literary theory. And Objectivism is more than a theoretical structure; it is a philosophy to live by. Over time, the accumulated experience of those who practice it will produce a moral tradition, a body of reflection about the issues that arise in applying the principles. As this happens, the philosophic content of Objectivism will become more complex and detailed. Philosophers who specialize in various fields will address issues that Ayn Rand did not consider, and put forward ideas that were not hers."
Mr. Voigt: As an Objectivist, I shy away from imposing my tastes as the moral imperative of someone else's creative expression. This is of course semantic and I otherwise excitedly endorse these resolves with my signature.
Mr. Stolyarov: First, thank you for your signature and your enthusiasm. My view on Resolve 12 is that "impressions and values that are in accord with a universe where man can and should exist as a free, prosperous, active entity" are broad enough to encompass certain artistic styles and movements apart from the Romantic Realist movement (which, of course, fits these classifications). For example, still life can portray objects of taste and luxury that provide great enjoyment to man and improve his condition in life. Historical paintings may also qualify, such as David's "Death of Socrates," which, though set during the great thinker's last hours, conveys his dignity and resolve in the face of his persecutors. I could even imagine a designer of creative geometric patterns claiming that his works are founded on strict mathematical logic, which is essential to man's existence.
I agree that this point was raised due to a semantic issue. Nevertheless, I am inclined to think that an artist following the style of Picasso or Jackson Pollock has certain very objectionable value-premises behind his work, and I doubt that such a man would be willing to come anywhere near endorsing Objectivist ideas.
I am
G. Stolyarov II
|
|
