Objectivism has set principles that doesn't change and any deviation cannot be rightly called Objectivism no matter how small. Is this true?


If we find something wrong we correct it. That is if something wrong is proven at all, just like scientific theories.

Which is which?

Views: 38

Replies to This Discussion

Objectivism does not try to call itself science or engineering or architecture. It is a value based philosophy of rational self interest, that is all. As such, it's founder decided how it was to be articulated. In doing so, Ayn Rand took great care to leave those areas particular to science to the scientist. These aspects of science are not part of Objectivism and therefore the rigors of science is not suspended in any way during the practice of rational self interest- from Rand's particular philosophical perspective.
Objectivism is like a thought vaccine against whim based thinking. It's a particular way of avoiding whim based thinking. It is elucidated in a philosophy of rational self interest (where one's life is a supreme value) created by a single individual; Rand,- with help from certain individuals who worked with Ayn Rand in exploring this new philosophy.
Unlike many other contemporary philosophies it rejects the idea (altruist idea) that man is a sacrificial animal. It views people of ability as role models and as heroic.
Dr. Leonard Peikoff would be one of Ayn Rand's heirs to the philosophical legacy of Objectivist thought. I humbly suggest you buy a copy of "Fearful Symmetry" as well as "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" both books penned by Dr. Peikoff- for further study on these important matters.
The pertinent question then would seem to be "are there any rational arguments that scientific exploration, fact testing, research and scientific innovation are hindered by Ayn Rand's non-theistic non-mystic thoughts on the philosophical subject of rational self interest?" The answer is obviously no.
"Does Objectivism Evolve?"

Are you asking does a value based philosophy of rational self interest evolve?

Only in the sense that while at one point in time science thought smoking was healthy and blood letting allowed malevolent humors to escape the afflicted tissues. From a scientific perspective smoking is no longer encouraged, nor is blood letting at the local Barber. These things have changed because of scientific research, which determined there are more effective treatments for anxiety and illness.

The Philosophy of Objectivism conflates poorly with the scientific method. They could be seen as philosophy of value based rational self interest being a foundation while the scientific method may rest on this foundation of Objectivism.
Scientific method rests on Objectivism better than it would rest on a foundation (philosophy of man as a sacrificial animal) of Altruism.
I would argue that Objectivism is the application of scientific method to life. If that is the case and our understanding changes, Objectivism would have to change as well. Objectivism is not a dogma and Ayn Rand was not all knowing. It has to have the flexibility to change if our understanding of the universe changes.
Once again; to add Objectivist philosophy to scientific method would require it to be part of a law of thermodynamics or a part of the theory of evolution or a part of the science of engineering or a part of the medical arts and sciences. Clearly Objectivism is none of these things. It is a certain view of the man (person my emphasis) of ability.
So your statement that Objectivism is "the application of scientific method to life" is inaccurate. Objectivism is a philosophy and it's reason for being is here on this site- in Ayn Rands words. You may accept the logic or not but judge you must. Using whim will cause you to fail in your evaluation of this philosophy.
"Objectivism is not a dogma and Ayn Rand was not all knowing. It has to have the flexibility to change if our understanding of the universe changes."
This is similar to stating: "Freudians gave way to Neo-Freudians, Conservatives were followed by the Neo-Cons- without thinking about any pejorative trends, it seems just as Tesla went beyond Edison, as time goes by we must improve on or evolve beyond Ayn Rand's Objectivism".

Well, in this life, some things are as good as it gets.
Objectivism, like Mozart needs no Neo-interlopers to claim or embellish it's relevance. It stands on it's own, like the Beatles portfolio or the Complete works of Shakespeare or the Grand Master chess moves of Capablanca.
Anyone who's been on the planet with their eyes and ears open can see this. Some would like to improve on Objectivism, but it would be like trying to fix something that is not broken.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service