Search Tags:

Categories:

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



Uploaded by: PaulMcKeever
Video Description:
A quick response to debates about what is Objectivism and what is not. Probably the first of a few such videos.


Tags for this video: Ayn Objectivism Rand

Find more videos in the "People" category
See more videos uploaded by PaulMcKeever

Related Videos
In Defence of Ayn Rand #2-2: 'Good' ArtIn Defence of Ayn Rand #3 - Ayn Rand was a PhilosopherIn Defence of Ayn Rand #4: Rand, Anarchism, and Taxes
in-defence-of-ayn-rand-22-good-art.htmlin-defence-of-ayn-rand-22-good-art.htmlin-defence-of-ayn-rand-22-good-art.html
In Defence of Ayn Rand #5: Is, Ought & Ethics In Defence of Ayn Rand #6: Metaphysics, Ego & Self-interest In Defence of Ayn Rand #7: Context, Charity, and Sacrifice
in-defence-of-ayn-rand-22-good-art.htmlin-defence-of-ayn-rand-22-good-art.htmlin-defence-of-ayn-rand-22-good-art.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
I have called ... ( 1 year ago by 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)
(cont'd)...that my ... ( 1 year ago by 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. :-)
Swell. Thanks for ... ( 1 year ago by Aaron08832)
Swell. Thanks for answering my questions.
Does a tautology ... ( 1 year ago by 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.
...Practice and ... ( 11 months ago by 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
It's a mater of ... ( 10 months ago by 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.
That's not a ... ( 10 months ago by 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".
I thought Ayn Rand ... ( 10 months ago by MisfitDoctor)
I thought Ayn Rand really didn't care about metaphysics because it wasn't based on perceived reality. Am I wrong?
Yes, I understand ... ( 10 months ago by 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?
Applications of a ... ( 10 months ago by 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.
Yes, you're wrong. ... ( 10 months ago by PaulMcKeever)
Yes, you're wrong. A good summary of Rand's metaphysics is presented in Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand".
I agree. However, ... ( 10 months ago by 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.
Ah, well, think ... ( 10 months ago by 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.
*Objectively* right ... ( 10 months ago by 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...
Array ( 10 months ago by 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.
No. I suggest ... ( 7 months ago by 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.
I found Mr. ... ( 7 months ago by 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.
No one has a ... ( 6 months ago by 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
principles ... ( 6 months ago by drzzt300drdn)
principles manifested in action, i.e., politics, economy, etc.
"Objectivism is a ... ( 6 months ago by 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.
As just one example ... ( 6 months ago by 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.
It's going to be a ... ( 5 months ago by 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.
Great analysis. ( 3 months ago by JJZeise)
Great analysis.
The original ... ( 1 month ago by 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.



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code