| | while I agree with virtually all the essentials of objectivism, and love her novels, and in many ways would fit the term "objectivist", I have always been loathe to use it on myself. this is one of two reasons why: this sort of "dont you step out of line" elitism leaves me very much out in the cold, and I am not going to kowtow to rand or peikoff or anyone else if and when I believe they are wrong. the other reason I have always been averse to the word "objectivist" is the often woefully embarassing behavior of the people "on the top of food chain". Peikoff has, in OPAR and Ominous parallels, done some very intelligent things with objectivism. He also has, if half the things I've heard are true, essentially earned himself a judgement of being a noxious, corrupt, and unforgiveably immoral jerk. to put it politely. As for kelley, let us simply say that his attempts to "reform" objectivism, while occasionally with good points have more of peter keating and gail wynand than howard roark in them. A true objectivist must be willing to modify and even reject portions of objectivism should they turn out faulty. now, of course, don't get me wrong: objectivism, while not perfect, is probably the best thing out there, and by a large margin. in fact, I would say that part of its strength is that, if it is properly followed, it will insist upon this self critique and self correction.
|
|
...innovation has to some extent been discouraged in the Objectivist movement. I think a lot of people who might have done something have been turned off by the act of getting their work approved or making sure that they were not crossing someone higher up in the movement. That's why I think a hierarchical structure is not a good thing in an intellectual movement. 
