|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.)
Labels can be such a pain. Like one-size-fits-all words. It was doubtless much easier when there was only one size Objectivist.
Q: 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.
"'Neo-Objectivist'? Please. Disagreeing about the principles that flow from the fundamentals doesn't make you "neo" anything: after all, reasonable people DO disagree...
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?
(Edited by Nathan Hawking on 6/06, 1:23am)
(Edited by Nathan Hawking on 6/06, 1:56am)