Open Objectivism
- - - - -
For reference:
Fact and Value: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The Leonard Peikoff/David Kelley intellectual exchange: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
- - - - -
As the person who first raised the issue of tolerance and of open vs. closed Objectivism—and the person whose position has been under consideration in recent posts—I’d like first of all to thank Walter Donway for his articulate explanation and defense of the position we share. To weigh in with additional thoughts:
1. Historically, the debate began in 1989 when Peter Schwartz attacked me for speaking to a libertarian organization, the Laissez-Farire Books supper club. I responded with a 4-page open letter ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) mailed (in pre-internet days) to my Objectivist colleagues, including Schwartz and Peikoff among others. I advocated tolerance in the service of the open expansion of Objectivism:
“There is much we can learn from others if we are willing to listen. And even where they are wrong, we strengthen the foundations of our own beliefs—the accuracy and range of our observations, the validity of our concepts, the rigor of our arguments—by the effort to prove why they are wrong.
“That’s why every age of reason has welcomed diversity and debate. The great minds of the Enlightenment declared war on the entire apparatus of intolerance: the obsession with official or authorized doctrine, the concepts of heresy and blasphemy, the party lines and intellectual xenophobia, the militant hostility among rival sects, the constant schisms and breaks, the character assassination of those who fall from grace. These are the techniques of irrational philosophies, such as Christianity or Marxism, and may well have been vital to their success. But they have no place in a philosophy of reason.
“Ayn Rand left us a magnificent system of ideas. But it is not a closed system. It is a powerful engine of integration. Let us not starve it of fuel by shutting our minds to what is good in other approaches. Let us test our ideas in open debate. If we are right, we have nothing to fear; if we are wrong, we have something to learn. Above all, let us encourage independent thought among ourselves. Let us welcome dissent, and the restless ways of the explorers among us. Nine out of ten new ideas will be mistakes, but the tenth will let in the light.”
That excerpt should make it clear that toleration of and engagement with those we disagree with is not the primary issue. The primary issue is whether Objectivism is open or closed as a philosophical system. If it’s open, we benefit from engagement. If closed, why bother? The open character is the founding principle of The Atlas Society, and we have pursued it many ways. An example is my work on benevolence as a virtue, which, as Walter explains, is grounded in basic values of Objectivism. That said, we are rigorous about what work we endorse: it must be consistent with established Objectivist principles, as hundreds of pages of exposition on our website will attest.
2. To my knowledge, this was the first time any Objectivist thinker has raised the issue of open vs. closed. I thought the open character was obvious; I thought my Objectivist colleagues were pursuing new Objectivist insights. “Fact and Value” was Peikoff’s response, saying that the philosophy was closed. I replied to his essay at length in The Contested Legacy pf Ayn Rand, esp. Chap 5. ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) No principal in Peikoff’s camp has responded to my arguments in 25 years. Meanwhile, I gave a talk on the issues in 2010, “Truth and Toleration Twenty Years Later” ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ).
My friends in the Gulch, this is an important issue and well worth debating. Having been party to this argument for 25 years, I hope my writing here today provides some historical context for those pursuing the issue in earnest. I'll try to answer any questions you might have.
For reference:
Fact and Value: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The Leonard Peikoff/David Kelley intellectual exchange: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
- - - - -
As the person who first raised the issue of tolerance and of open vs. closed Objectivism—and the person whose position has been under consideration in recent posts—I’d like first of all to thank Walter Donway for his articulate explanation and defense of the position we share. To weigh in with additional thoughts:
1. Historically, the debate began in 1989 when Peter Schwartz attacked me for speaking to a libertarian organization, the Laissez-Farire Books supper club. I responded with a 4-page open letter ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) mailed (in pre-internet days) to my Objectivist colleagues, including Schwartz and Peikoff among others. I advocated tolerance in the service of the open expansion of Objectivism:
“There is much we can learn from others if we are willing to listen. And even where they are wrong, we strengthen the foundations of our own beliefs—the accuracy and range of our observations, the validity of our concepts, the rigor of our arguments—by the effort to prove why they are wrong.
“That’s why every age of reason has welcomed diversity and debate. The great minds of the Enlightenment declared war on the entire apparatus of intolerance: the obsession with official or authorized doctrine, the concepts of heresy and blasphemy, the party lines and intellectual xenophobia, the militant hostility among rival sects, the constant schisms and breaks, the character assassination of those who fall from grace. These are the techniques of irrational philosophies, such as Christianity or Marxism, and may well have been vital to their success. But they have no place in a philosophy of reason.
“Ayn Rand left us a magnificent system of ideas. But it is not a closed system. It is a powerful engine of integration. Let us not starve it of fuel by shutting our minds to what is good in other approaches. Let us test our ideas in open debate. If we are right, we have nothing to fear; if we are wrong, we have something to learn. Above all, let us encourage independent thought among ourselves. Let us welcome dissent, and the restless ways of the explorers among us. Nine out of ten new ideas will be mistakes, but the tenth will let in the light.”
That excerpt should make it clear that toleration of and engagement with those we disagree with is not the primary issue. The primary issue is whether Objectivism is open or closed as a philosophical system. If it’s open, we benefit from engagement. If closed, why bother? The open character is the founding principle of The Atlas Society, and we have pursued it many ways. An example is my work on benevolence as a virtue, which, as Walter explains, is grounded in basic values of Objectivism. That said, we are rigorous about what work we endorse: it must be consistent with established Objectivist principles, as hundreds of pages of exposition on our website will attest.
2. To my knowledge, this was the first time any Objectivist thinker has raised the issue of open vs. closed. I thought the open character was obvious; I thought my Objectivist colleagues were pursuing new Objectivist insights. “Fact and Value” was Peikoff’s response, saying that the philosophy was closed. I replied to his essay at length in The Contested Legacy pf Ayn Rand, esp. Chap 5. ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) No principal in Peikoff’s camp has responded to my arguments in 25 years. Meanwhile, I gave a talk on the issues in 2010, “Truth and Toleration Twenty Years Later” ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ).
My friends in the Gulch, this is an important issue and well worth debating. Having been party to this argument for 25 years, I hope my writing here today provides some historical context for those pursuing the issue in earnest. I'll try to answer any questions you might have.
Ayn Rand would be spinning in her grave if she knew a bunch of secondhanders are not thinking for themselves but instead quoting her or everything she ever said anything about, whether she was speaking with philosophical rigor at the time or not. Instead of taking on the most central duty of objectivist ethics, thinking, they make objectivism and all or nothing closed system and act as if that closed system is more important than comprehending reality for oneself and acting on that comprehension.
Objectivism is a philosophy of rationality and of fully rational self interest. That is by its nature not closed. Especially if it is to be a living philosophy and way of life rather than a memetic mausoleum.
You might want to check out when the 26th and 27th amendments were ratified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
I agree, much of the down voting does not make for a civil discussion and is likely counter productive. I think we see the same in politics today.
Always add a question mark to knowledge that you think to be a closed subject. I find that beliefs that I considered knowledge for decades sometimes have to be reconsidered and changed to be consistent with objective reality. Similarly, philosophies have to be considered as open systems and if religions were to be considered open then it would be possible for them to become philosophies for those who look for facts and ultimately for truths about existence.
Again, you have not read his work. How can you comment on his accomplishments?
What is ironic is that Peikoff's jealous guardianship of Objectivism has driven people away from Objectivism and into libertarian circles.
"In attacking McCaskey, Leonard Peikoff defends The Logical Leap’s theory of induction as part of Objectivism, despite the fact that it contains many innovations that Ayn Rand herself never addressed."-William R. Thomas
http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...
From Amazon on TLL, "Ayn Rand presented her revolutionary theory of concepts in her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. As Dr. Peikoff subsequently explored the concept of induction, he sought out David Harriman, a physicist who had taught philosophy, for his expert knowledge of the scientific discovery process."
If that is not a statement in favor of "open" I don't know what is. Perhaps only Peikoff can make innovation with respect to Objectivism. and when he dies-then what? Will he name a successor? that's weird
Change is also difficult, however. Change requires effort - especially because there is always a psychological change which accompanies a procedural or technical change. Good business managers and change consultants have known this for decades. It's one reason why so many software projects fail: they address the technical side of the change, but insufficiently address the psychological side of the change. It's a concept in the business world known as "buy-in" and if your users and line managers don't buy in (or psychologically invest) in the change, until they do they are going to fight the changes. When enough people fight the changes to a software system - or fail to buy-in - the system will eventually fail, and usually not because it lacked merit.
Q: Why don't we as humans simply just accept that when our IT people tell us an upgrade or new system is a good thing for us?
A: Because we are comfortable with how we have been doing things and have developed a mindset that complements those methods.
To expand, that mindset is not just a psychological thing, it is also a physical path of networking of the neurons in the brain. It is literally our internal wiring. Can the wiring be changed? Yes, but the longer someone has been doing something, the more difficult it is to effect change. The old axiom "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" is based on this observation. While not 100% accurate, the amount of effort required to re-write old pathways with new ones is roughly analogous to the amount of time we spent using those old pathways. Habits are a powerful thing and are reflective of neural pathways exercised until those actions, etc., are literally ingrained in our minds.
So if habitual actions are that difficult to change, isn't it amazing that people can change at all? Quite frankly, yes. Motivation, obviously, must be a powerful thing - powerful enough to cause us to exercise/work until change happens. The motivation ultimately must be personal gain or improvement to be truly effective, because change only happens at a personal level. That's why monetary impulses can be highly motivating. It's why the grocery stores have all those impulse-buy items right at the checkout counter: they are playing on the stimulus-response of short-term gain.
Impetus for change can also be derived from the perception of a future gain or improvement. These are the most difficult changes to effect because the effort put forth does not necessarily generate a gain in the near-term. Smoking cessation projects qualify here, as it may take an individual several years on nicotine patches or gum before they finally give up cigarettes and override the habit of having something wedged between the fore- and middle fingers. Weight loss programs face a similar challenge. For long-term changes to habits, therefore, there must be a constant reminder that the work we do now is to effect a change that may only fully manifest itself in the future, or that our efforts at every day change effect such a small alteration to the pathways of the brain that this ever-so-gradual change is imperceptible except when viewed from the long-term.
When we are talking psychological or ideological change, we are talking long-term change - not something that happens at the snap of fingers. The metaphorical "lightbulb" moment only applies to the sudden understanding one gains with insight into the nature of the personal gain to be had by change - it unfortunately provides no more than a mere spark towards effecting the actual change. Thus constant reinforcement from external sources (repetition, revisiting things we already know) is not wasted effort at all. It is an effort towards strengthening and reinforcing those neural pathways through constant practice and exercise.
What happens when we don't use those pathways? Just like volatile RAM in a computer, it may get over-written with new pathways. Our behaviors change and we stray from what we once did.
Please feel free to send your phone number to austexk72 in a private message. To send a private message, click on the member's username (e.g. "austek72") and then click on the "Message" button located directly underneath the member's profile picture.
This is the essence of Objectivism. Thank you David. You are a HERO.
Load more comments...