In Defence of Ayn Rand #9: The Word "Objectivism"

[OGAndizzo]

oh shit dawg y'all callin anyone that changes objectivism posers. But it true dat dey be frontin like dey down with objectivism.

well that's what you said in so many words anyway <.<

[kingazzaman]

Objectivism: A yawn-worthy philosophy with which people who nobody gives a shit about find a way not to give a shit about everyone else.

[scottdesapio]

"Defence" is spelled "Defense."

Not because I think it is but rather, it is.

[dabrooks4]

In the US - it is spelled D-E-F-E-N-S-E - spelled with "c" in GB. I know this guy does not appear British - but it is an accepted spelling. Please think before you write....

[refuckulate420]

@scottdesapio

Bwahha...someone doesn't know english very well.

[olvew]

If you cannot modify elements of Ayn Rand's philosophy which are clearly wrong, without ceasing to be an Objectivist, then you have to regard homosexuality as disgusting in order to remain an Objectivist. Do you regard homosexuality as disguisting?

[refuckulate420]

Lies.

[Jazzper79]

I agree with you Paul. A comment from me is that I think people use the word ´objectivism´ without truly understanding the fact of reality, like the law of identity you mentioned or the laws of logic. The word is smart to say, but I believe very few knows what is really meant by it.

your videos are great. Thanks.

Jesper 29, Denmark

[golpher93]

Awesome. Can't even spell "defense" and now we know that Objectivism is Objectivism.

[PaulMcKeever]

The original spelling, still used in the country that invented the word, is defence, with a c. More lately, Americans have replaced the "c" with an "s". They've also given the world "nite" instead of "night". It's simpler for the kids to learn, I suppose.

[unemployedfreak]

But according to the law of identity, defence is defence, whereas defense is defense (not defence). If you modify defence then it's not the same thing, right? Well, actually, it just isn't *spelled* the same... but the meaning is the same, according to some. Maye some people think they can modify Objectivism so the spelling is the same but some other aspect has been changed.

[rl4286]

Look a drowning child! Wait your fatass will never save it.

[JJZeise]

Great analysis.

[drzzt300drdn]

principles manifested in action, i.e., politics, economy, etc.

[drzzt300drdn]

No one has a monopoly on reason or objectivity. Objectivism is a word defined by its definition alone- not the views of an individual. You alone are the ultimate source of determining truth. Not even Ayn Rand can determine what is true or false for you. No one can but yourself. That is the quintessence of objectivism- your inherant right to determine what is truth through the use of the faculty of reason. The variation of thought in objectivism is not the conceptual principles: but those princi

[PaulMcKeever]

"Objectivism is a word defined by its definition alone".

The definition of the word "Objectivism" is: the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Objectivism is not defined as: a hodge-podge of ideas drawn from Ayn Rand's philosophy, according to ones agreement with them.

[MikeRenzulli]

I found Mr. McKeever's video and commentary about David Kelley and the folks at The Atlas Society as very disingenuous. If not outright dishonest. While I am a new student to the philosophy, I have not seen anything in Mr. Kelley's writings that has lead me to believe that he has changed or modified anything about Rand's philosophy.

[PaulMcKeever]

As just one example: consider Dominique's words to Keating in regard to the dinner guests that were to come to their house. Dominique condemns the idea that tolerance is a virtue. It is not enough to identify ideas as being "different": a moral person EVALUATES them, allocating praise or condemnation accordingly.

[Youhavethebody]

It's going to be a long process for you, to see whether you agree with Kelley or ultimately with Peikoff on their split.

I would suggest e-mailing Diana Hsieh from the Noodlefood blog, who has spent quite a bit of time on both sides (including 10 years with The Objectivist Center/Kelley)

There's material on the internet from both sides which may help you.

Personally, I'm on the Peikoff side.

[lonewolfintj]

No. I suggest reading Zadeh and Korzybski, and leaning less on Aristotle. I find it hard to imagine that even one human being exists who agrees with EVERYTHING Ayn Rand thought and said. But according to your argument, that means there are no objectivists. I'd say that people who agree with the core principles of objectivism are objectivists. Same for any other branch of philosophical thought. As soon as you set a philosophy in concrete, it's no longer a philosophy: it's a religion.

[grantsinmypants]

It's a mater of historical fact that Rand chose to call her philosophy Oism as opposed to "Randism" as was becoming popular @ the time. The question is what she meant by "my philosophy" in those (readily available) statements. Did she mean the totality of her philosophical beliefs or did she mean her method (ie: her entirely new epistemology). The fact that she chose Oism amongst other valid candidates like "Existenceism" or "Rational Egoism" of "Radical Capitalism" suggests the latter.

[PaulMcKeever]

That's not a serious question. She explained - explicitly - what she meant by her philosophy numerous times. She consistently referred to her metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and social system (capitalism) as the parts comprising her philosophy. See her description of her philosophy "while standing on one foot".

[MisfitDoctor]

I thought Ayn Rand really didn't care about metaphysics because it wasn't based on perceived reality. Am I wrong?

[PaulMcKeever]

Yes, you're wrong. A good summary of Rand's metaphysics is presented in Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand".

[grantsinmypants]

Yes, I understand that the definition of a philosophy, any philosophy, is a connected body of knowledge dealing w/ metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics. The question then becomes: Is Oism every position that AR ever uttered about 1 of these branches (and may not have gotten around to retracting) or is it 5 objectively validated positions regarding the essentials of each?

[PaulMcKeever]

Applications of a philosophy are not the philosophy itself. However, if Objectivism itself is flawed, the flaw is part of Objectivism. The only serious debates about the nature of Objectivism concern the nature of the philosophy itself, rather than about whether someone likes the music of Rachmaninoff.

[grantsinmypants]

I agree. However, I don't consider developing a position on esthetics the same as applying that position to a critique of Rachmaninoff.

Any opinion Rand had about a particular thinker, politician, event, or artist was just that. Even though usually it was the case b/c Rand was an astute and honest critic, her opinion wasn't and isn't automatically the objective take on the particular.

[PaulMcKeever]

Ah, well, think about that. We cannot in every case know what was objectively the right take for *Rand* to take: one would have to have perfect knowledge of *her* hierarchy of values. i.e., *objectively* right is different than *intrinsicly* right.

[grantsinmypants]

*Objectively* right is also different from *subjectively* right. Rand studied the same works of philosophy and was exposed to the same cultural and political and artistic phenomenons as everyone else.

It's one thing to say that Rand valued a work b/c it helped her understand (read: develop) her own position(s), but it's entirely different to say that she valued a work because she was secretly a nihilist or a communist.

cont...

[grantsinmypants]

...cont

Rand, being human, valued certain things because she knew they promoted her life and happiness. But also being human, she was capable of error, even if just in terms of proportion.

In fact, I think its this error of proportion that is the crux of the Peikoff-Kelley issue. I think theyre both wrong. Unlike Peikoff, I do think that benevolence is a "virtue", but only as a subcategory of the virtue of justice. Unlike Kelley, I dont believe it to be its own category of virtue.

[radiotrackstar]

Does a tautology tell me anything? Saying a batchelor is a married man advances my understanding of the properties of batchelorhood not one single bit...your arguments are similarly tautological. The question is are her truth claims valid. Surely that is the question .. no? In otherwords is her philosophy 'objective'? Objective statements are about necessary truths that are in principle verifiable because they have an existence seperate from or independently of the knowing subject.

[aaron0883]

Your videos are generally my favorite. I recently (obviously if you saw my video) been analysing Objectivism the definition. I have come to an acceptance. However, I have also come to the conclusion that no person who looks at the world rationally should call themself an objectivist. Even if someone independantly agrees with Ayn Rand 100% it would be best to not call yourself an objectivist because once you detour in the slightest way ... you can no longer call yourself an objectivist.

[aaron0883]

Do you believe Rand was 100% correct and found absolute truth? If someone follows Ayn Rand' philosophy just because it is Ayn Rand's. Than this person has given into some sort of hero worship. I am interested in what you have to say. Are you an Objectivist?

[PaulMcKeever]

Hi Aaron. Thank-you for your kind words. I concur with the discoveries that Rand made. However, when it comes to politics, I think that I might differ in the way I would talk about the concepts. (cont'd)

[PaulMcKeever]

I have called myself an Objectivist before, though I usually tell myself to resist telling people what I AM, instead telling them what I believe/disbelieve: that nothing is supernatural; that I neither hold nor act upon any belief that is not the result of my own strictly logical process of thought about that for which there is ultimately physical evidence; (...cont'd)

[PaulMcKeever]

(cont'd)...that my own life is my highest value and the pursuit of my own happiness is my highest purpose; that all relations between individuals should be consensual; and that capitalism is the only moral social system on earth. That usually lets people know EXACTLY what I am. :-)

[Aaron08832]

Swell. Thanks for answering my questions.

[Inaissance]

...Practice and expression of the aforementioned principles consistently and 'as they could and should be' would bring you into the -Realm of the Romantic Realist- thereby completing your five pARameters of Egoïsm.

ie)

Metaphysics- ObjectiveReality

Epistemology- Reason

Ethics- Selffulness

PoliticoEconomic- Capitalism

Aesthetics- RomanticRealism

...and in 'know-time' you'll have your Invitation into Atlantis $8D

[tsummerlee]

It's a question of keeping the windows and doors closed, and caulked shut.

AAAAAAAAAIR!!!!! ::gasp::

[bluelight162]

It is historically incorrect to lump 'Objectivism' with 'objectivism.' They are not the same. 'Objectivism,' that is Ayn Rand's philosophy existed after the term 'objectivism' was understood in general philosophy. So even though Ayn Rand owns 'Objectivism' being: all the characteristics of her philosophy and not less, she does not own the general concept which consists of fewer, but similar principles.

[PaulMcKeever]

That's fair. I don't think I said anything to the contrary.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

Great explanation!

[witzkeyman]

nice place.

[PaulMcKeever]

Just got back on Friday night. Miss it already. You can a bit more of it in my most recent Freedom Party video: youtube[dot]com[slash]watch?v=­wA2-Nj4TL8g

[XOmniverse]

I've encountered some strange "Objectivists" over the years, including a so-called "Christian Objectivist" (Don't ask me how he reconciled this mentally).

It is annoying no longer having a convenient label to describe the whole of my philosophy, which is something I had pre-anarchism. Market anarchism only describes a philosophy of social ethics; it indicates in no way that I am an ethical egoist, or a metaphysical objectivist (small o).

[PaulMcKeever]

Shawnism?

[PaulMcKeever]

No, wait: XOmnivism. Coin it now! ;-)