Objectivism defined
James E. Prescott
in essence the concept of man as a heroic being, with
his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with
productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason
as his only absolute.
That is how Ayn Rand herself defined her own philosophy,
and it's still the best summation.
Holding to those general tenets alone does not make a
person an Objectivist. A lot more goes into understanding
Objectivism in epistemology, ethics, politics. But on the
other hand, it isn't necessary that a person calling himself
an Objectivist embrace and re-commit Ayn Rand's errors,
either. If you fully understand and agree with the funda-
mental tenets of Objectivism, expressed above, for the
same /valid/ reasons discovered and explained by Ayn
Rand, then you, like myself, are an Objectivist -- the
invalid arguments she made (and there were several
very significant ones) notwithstanding.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Charles Bell
Wikipedia maintains a decent article on Objectivism here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
generally (as of today) free of bias, though not of error.
Jim Klein
Y'know, for a bunch of such highly educated and well-read
people, you guys sure don't read simple wording too well.
-----------------------------------
but rather "rigorous AS an explicit declaration
of precisely what 'the philosophy of Objectivism' is," in those
specific words, and according to Rand.
-----------------------------------
I'm not leaving this offer open forever. You got 48 hours to
come up with the answer as originally posed, or you don't
make the easiest twenty bucks ever.
And no cheatin', cuz I'm sure the really faithful over at the
Church, would know the answer in a heartbeat.
jk
Charles Bell
> -----------------------------------
> but rather "rigorous AS an explicit declaration
> of precisely what 'the philosophy of Objectivism' is," in those
> specific words, and according to Rand.
> -----------------------------------
>
Is this "as" EMPHASIZED or /Atlas Shrugged/? Either way, it does not
have enough words/syntax for me to understand what it means.
As for Prescott, I have expressed my view that he is a pseudo-
Objectivist (not just a not an Objectivist) several times over the
years. For him to say: "the invalid arguments she made (and there
were several very significant ones) notwithstanding" is to say that
she was wrong -- not in the application of her philosophy at times --
but that she was wrong in her philosophy, by invalid arguments, at
times, for which Prescott kindly will provided us the light to see.
Jim Klein
> > -----------------------------------
> > but rather "rigorous AS an explicit declaration
> > of precisely what 'the philosophy of Objectivism' is," in those
> > specific words, and according to Rand.
> > -----------------------------------
>
> Is this "as" EMPHASIZED or /Atlas Shrugged/?
Sorry...the former.
> Either way, it does not
> have enough words/syntax for me to understand what it means.
Then toss it out and reduce it to this...
-------------------------------------
> > of precisely what 'the philosophy of Objectivism' is," in those
> > specific words, and according to Rand.
-------------------------------------
The emphasis should be "IN THOSE SPECIFIC WORDS," as if the claim
were directly, "THIS IS THE PHILOSOPHY OF OBJECTIVISM: XXXXXXXX"
That's so much of a clue that I might as well ship the cash now!
It did occur to me that this relates to the obligation issue, even as
I
understand that's one subject for which you don't need instruction.
When you answer this trivia question, as I'm confident you will, I
will
"owe" you twenty bucks. Further, this would be so if you either
declined the debt or even if you affirmatively stated that you didn't
want it. So while the transitivity is still there--it's /to you/ that
I owe
the money--the source of the obligation is, as /any/ source of /any/
intentional action must be, exclusively myself.
Further, all the words in the world can't change that simple fact. I
understand that you already know this, but I thought some inlookers
might appreciate the point. Your declination might affect the status
of the legalobligation, but it would have absolutely no effect on the
status of the obligation...none whatsoever. This should help
demonstrate
that legalobligations are not necessarily a subset of obligations.
> As for Prescott, I have expressed my view that he is a pseudo-
> Objectivist (not just a not an Objectivist) several times over the
> years. For him to say: "the invalid arguments she made (and there
> were several very significant ones) notwithstanding" is to say that
> she was wrong -- not in the application of her philosophy at times --
> but that she was wrong in her philosophy, by invalid arguments, at
> times, for which Prescott kindly will provided us the light to see.
Well, I called him a "thug" and that's not totally accurate. I'd be
quicker to apologize except that the truth is that he's not /even/
a thug and so the truth is worse. A thug uses his intentional
faculty to decide to use thuggery against other people. That's
a mighty rotten decision IMO, but not even as bad as using one's
rational faculty to /defend/ thuggery on a moral basis. IOW it's
a combination of thuggery /and/ fraud. While many people have
the defense (of the fraud charge) of simply not seeing the point,
there is a certain level of awareness and intelligence for which
that defense simply doesn't hold.
Having analyzed many thugs (and frauds!) in my time, I can
attest that very, very few of them will attempt to defend their
actions on any serious moral basis. Plus, they're generally
not in the habit of having others do their thuggery for them.
That is a level of cowardice that deserves note IMO.
As to your point here, I've always believed that the underlying
and fundamental point of Objectivism is "correspondence
with reality," or something very similar. I think Rand made
this clear many different ways. "Reality is the final arbiter"
and all that sort of stuff. So to me, the acceptance of /any/
error, whether from Rand or Peikoff or whomever, /can't/ be
Objectivism since it violates a hierarchically superior
principle of the philosophy.
That admittedly doesn't say very much, since "being right"
or "being true" is presumably everyone's goal. OTOH, I find
the claim that "being wrong" or "being false" can somehow
be "consistent with Objectivism" is a monstrous fraud of the
highest order...and not only by my personal standard, but
also "according to Objectivism." That is my basic point
with regard to the "Perfect Inversion" of ARIanism.
jk
Charles Bell
>
> -------------------------------------> > of precisely what 'the philosophy of Objectivism' is," in those
> > > specific words, and according to Rand.
>
> -------------------------------------
I still do not understand.
Most of the rest of your post is as if you were still talking to
Prescott. For example, I have no concept of legalobligation as a
subset of obligations.
It would be better if you simply explained the above. Is it that
Objectivism is *only* what Rand wanted it to be (contra Prescott) and
in the words she used. Again, I see you having more a problem with
that in practice than I.
James E. Prescott
> On Feb 11, 6:15 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > -----------------------------------
> > > but rather "rigorous AS an explicit declaration
> > > of precisely what 'the philosophy of Objectivism' is," in those
> > > specific words, and according to Rand.
> > > -----------------------------------
>
> > Is this "as" EMPHASIZED or /Atlas Shrugged/?
>
> Sorry...the former.
>
> > Either way, it does not
> > have enough words/syntax for me to understand what it means.
>
> Then toss it out and reduce it to this...
>
> -------------------------------------
> > > of precisely what 'the philosophy of Objectivism'
> > > is," in those
> > > specific words, and according to Rand.
> -------------------------------------
> The emphasis should be "IN THOSE SPECIFIC WORDS," as
> if the claim were directly, "THIS IS THE PHILOSOPHY
> OF OBJECTIVISM: XXXXXXXX" That's so much of a clue
> that I might as well ship the cash now!
You can keep the cash, Jim. I do not hold you obligated.
This is, however, perhaps too much of a clue. Especially
so, as I've noticed you've recently been reading and
citing from Ayn Rand's For_the_New_Intellectual.
As I recall, in that book, Ayn Rand reprinted Galt's
Speech, which begins, "This is John Galt speaking,"
and I believe she titled or sub-titled that chapter,
"This is the philosophy of Objectivism."
I could go to the next room and check, but my wife is
asleep there, and maybe that would be "cheating."
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Mal
> Objectivism, the philosophy originated by Ayn Rand, is
> in essence the concept of man as a heroic being,
"Heroic being"? Whatever happened to "rational animal"?
Jim Klein
> I still do not understand.
>
> Most of the rest of your post is as if you were still talking to
> Prescott.
I was replying to you, and the offer was made, AFAIK each
and every time, to you exclusively. If that's wrong. like if
I made it a general offer, then Prescott's got it coming. But
I'm pretty sure I didn't. I try to be very careful with my words
always, but especially so when money's involved.
So now, to the degree you'd like to pursue this, you can
explain to everyone how, "This is the philosophy of
Objectivism" doesn't mean, This is the philosophy of
Objectivism."
After all, on that chore, you've sure had plenty of practice!
jk
Charles Bell
> So now, to the degree you'd like to pursue this, you can
> explain to everyone how, "This is the philosophy of
> Objectivism" doesn't mean, This is the philosophy of
> Objectivism."
>
I still have no idea what you are getting at.
x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.
James E. Prescott
Not sure I understand the question. The rational animal is a mere
definition of man, not a moral appraisal.
Best Wishes,
Jim P
Malrassic Park
Objectivism is, in essence, the concept of man as a heroic being. I
want to know what is heroic about a rational being.
Jim Klein
> Objectivism is, in essence, the concept of man as a heroic being. I
> want to know what is heroic about a rational being.
Nothing, not a damn thing. It's no more heroic than being a
horse that can trot, or a fish that can swim. It's just a
simple fact, that's all.
Heroic is what it allows a person to become. Objectivism is,
in essence, why that's a smart choice to make. Get it?
I get you. You disagree and think it's either a stupid choice
or that it doesn't matter. Or in your worse moments, that it's
not even a choice. Do I misunderstand?
jk