RoR: Forum

Yes!

Post 1

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 9:58am

Mr. Newnham,

Do you agree with or condone Ayn Rand's attitude in this quotation? Do you, too, think that all disagreements with any of Rand's philosophical views are merely indulgences in arbitrary flights of fancy?

In a post on another thread, I wrote:

There are philosophical reasons why I do not consider myself an Objectivist and should not be considered an Objectivist.

Here are my reasons, standing on one foot:
Metaphysics---Rand's is overly deterministic.
Epistemology---Rand's is overly subjectivist.
Ethics---Rand's is overly egoist.

If you were interested, I could tell you a good deal of reasons concerning just how Rand erred in these ways in her philosophy. Do you really think that in these his disagreements with Rand (and in his extensions of the elements of Rand's that he thinks correct) that Stephen Boydstun is merely indulging in arbitrary flights of fancy? Or is that a presumption you make until you learn otherwise concerning the specific disagreements (or extensions)? Or do you disagree with Rand's attitude in your quotation?

Post 2

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 10:51am

Good point, Stephen. A reasoned disagreement with Objectivism on any given point does not constitute a "flight of fancy."

My position is somewhat different from yours. Unlike you, I am an Objectivist; I do not disagree with any essential aspect of Rand's philosophy as expressed by her, rather than as expressed by self-annointed interpreters. Using their own creative criteria, however, some of these latter would say that I am not an Objectivist.

The determination of who is, and who is not, an "Objectivist" ought to be made by reference to one's explicit agreement with the philosophical principles as put forth by Ayn Rand herself in her seminal works -- and not agreement with new "flights of fancy" litmus tests put forth by interpreters.

Post 3

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:14am

I agree with Robert at this point in time, with the following observation:

In the English language, there is a custom of a word having more than one definition. It is possible for Objectivism to be a proper noun meaning only what was written and sanctioned by Rand. It is also possible for it to mean a school of philosophical thought founded by Rand.

If a person calls himself an Objectivist, he could be referring to either definition. USA law does not recognize patenting a name for a school of thought like it does for a company, say like Xerox. Even in the case of trademark protection for Xerox, this word has become a synonym for photocopy.

The march of time and history will probably end up making Objectivism mean predominantly the second definition, if the same thing happens here that has always happened with words for schools of thought. Despite attempts to the contrary, I seriously doubt humanity will cut the proper noun purists an exception.

Michael

Post 4

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:15am

Stephen,

Yes I do agree with and condone Ayn Rands attitude. It refers those who call themselves Objectivists while at the same time holding views that may be the antithesis of Objectivism. That is the context of the quote.

You are exercising intellectual honesty and integrity by not calling yourself an Objectivist, given your disagreements with the philosophy. Does that mean that your disagreements are flights of fancy and therefore not to be taken seriously? Not necessarily.

There are aspects of Objectivism that I haven't grasped intellectually, there are others that I embrace, and there are those aspects I have recently begun to question. That is why I (gasp) no longer call myself an Objectivist.

John

Post 5

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 6:01pm

My field is not a "flight of fancy".

Post 6

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 6:41pm

How so Jenna?

---Landon

Post 7

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 9:25pm

All inspiration is in someway a flight of fancy.

My field is not a "flight of fancy".

Yes it is. The ignorant always get to pick definitions. ( They have numerical superiority.) Their definitions, however, do not get to pick genius. You do not get to pick what the retarded pick as useful. Sorry! (And I use the term retarded in the nicest terms.)

Your fancy may be the future's survival.

"Flight of fancy" is a term "you" should learn to love.

Do not expect the ignorant to understand. That is why they are called "ignorant."

Fancy away! ("You seem to be very, very good at it!")

gw

(Edited by gary williams on 4/07, 9:27pm)

Post 8

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 6:27am

Thank you for responding to my questions, John, and for telling us the context of the quote.

Michael Kelly, thanks for the input. Along with the name of Rand's philosophy Objectivism, there is also the name Randian used as a term of philosophic kinship. These are in currency now, and we can expect both to continue to be used. Transcendental Idealism is the name Kant chose for his mature philosophy, and the name stuck. Kantian and Neo-Kantian are the names that got used for various philosophies descendent from Kant's across the following two centuries. Perhaps Randian and Neo-Randian will be the apt names for various philosophies descendent from Rand's in the future.

Bob, thanks for your remark here. As you probably know, I agree with your criteria for the name Objectivist, so far as you have expressed them here and in your post #20 of the thread pertaining Diana's blog.

Post 9

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 7:59am

Stephen,

Thank you right back atcha. //;-)

Here is an addition to my previous remarks I made elsewhere:

Even if we accept the idea of a proper noun, we can go even further , using Rand's own definitions. Here's an interesting quote from ITOE, 2nd Edition, p. 11:

Quote:
(Proper names are used in order to identify and include particular entities in a conceptual method of cognition. Observe that even proper names, in advanced civilizations, follow the definitional principles of genus and differentia: e.g., John Smith, with "Smith" serving as genus and "John" as differentia—or New York, U.S.A.)

Thus using this system, we can arrive at Objectivism (only what Rand wrote and endorsed), ARI Objectivism, TOC Objectivism, etc., where Objectivism would be the genus and the school of thought developing on it would be the differentia. Some people use neo-Objectivism in this manner, except they usually include ARI Objectivism in the term "Objectivism."

I like my little formulation here, as it meets the requirements of both proper name and school of thought.

Of course this could apply to "Randian" also. I personally have decided to help history along so all this silliness over a name can stop. (It's hard to believe that grown people get so wound up over this. Reminds me of more primitive societies.) How about the name "Thinking Objectivist"? Now that's one hell of a differentia.

//;-)

Michael

Post 10

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 11:22am

Michael,

Yeah, through just such a differentia we have things like this "Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

Sounds ok doesn't it?

You probably wonder why people give you so much grief over your use of the term Objectivist. While you are free to call yourself what you wish, you espouse ideas in your arguements that are as much Objectivism as North Korea is a democracy. In other words, fundamentally against.

Ethan

Post 11

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 1:00pm

Ethan,

You are mistaken. I normally don't "espouse" ideas these days. I question.

I've decided to leave the preaching to you guys. However, your insinuation that I'm communist is beneath your normal quality.

Sooooooo... preach away. I'm all ears.

Michael

Post 12

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 2:03pm

The fact that you think I was calling you a communist shows me that you are incapable of understanding a simple analogy.

Post 13

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 3:24pm

Michael I think that may be a big part of the problem. If I'm REALLY grappling with a tough issue I say next to nothing about it to anyone else until I'm pretty close to a decision (or I think the path I'm on might be a dead end and I just need help learning the particulars, so I can refute it myself).

If you're still activly engaging in issues you don't really understand enough to effectivly debate or don't formally know where you stand on them what comes out is usually a huge mess. (this goes for anyone I'm not singling you out).

In cases where I can tell my understanding is lacking I just sit back and let the info soak in when I listen to people who do understand the issue better. I try to be careful not to contradict myself (and when I catch myself I acknowledge it) because I theoretically could be leading someone with less understanding than myself in a wrong dirrection and I couldn't live with betraying someone like that.

---Landon

Post 14

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 3:48pm

"Flight of Fancy" is NOT same as Flight of Fantasy"......

Post 15

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 8:07pm

Landon-
I rarely disagree with you, but here I do. If I am uncertain about an issue, it helps me to discuss it, and even to be lambasted by others, if that is their method of doing things. As for misleading others, I have no obligation to others, and I don't accept the unearned guilt of what my hashing out an idea might potentially do to another. I would never intentionally deceive others, but they must come to their own conclusions.

Post 16

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 8:23pm

Fair enough.

I'm mainly saying that you think through these ideas on your own and its best to have an idea of where you stand before you start making statements.

I know there are other people who prefer to put their ideas out there before they've really thought them through to do it that way. Just I know when I'm thinking through an issue or principle I come across a lot of ideas I wind up regretting later. I prefer to wait until I have a fairly good idea of where I stand on something before I subject it to other's people's judgement.

It's probably an overly cautious attitude but that other aspect is there are going to be enough people in the world trying to get really horrible things to happen that I'm going to want to see stopped... It'd make me really happy if they didn't get those ideas from me.

---Landon

Post 17

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 8:45pm

Landon, as you said, "fair enough". I understand your concern about misleading others. There are certain ideas that I like to hash out in my mind, it presents a challenging puzzle, so to speak. Other ideas, I need the opposing side. I'm unsure, and need to hash it out with those with greater knowledge of the subject, or a different slant on the subject, or even those that are just plain smarter than myself. I just think that when this "hashing out" of ideas is done in sincerity, then you have no responsibility to anyone but yourself.

Post 18

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 8:55pm

I think we understand each other now.

---Landon

Post 19

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 12:23am