Rand was never (to my knowledge) against the benefits to society as a whole. The goal of an individual, in her view, was to create good and advancements for the mankind. The method, as compared to the collectivists, is fundamentally different, but that is not to say that Rand was against the good for others. According to Rand, a good and moral society is when all (or most) do good primarily for themselves, but result in good for all (or most). She did not advocate for a "dog-eat-dog" society.

What do you mean? I think she described ade-
quately what she was: an Objectivist. True, some
people like to use the term "secular humanist", often as a pejorative, as distinguished from a re-
ligionist. She believed in the material world, the
world knowable to reason, so, in that respect,
I would say she was a "humanist"--or at least,
secular. But she did not say that man can change the nature of reality, or that the laws of
nature will change because he says so.

Thank you. That's a lovely compliment!

Great contribution, dear K!

Hello, David,
You know how to write well, ergo, you know how to think well. Bravo!

What should, and likely DOES, make sense to you, is CONTEXT.

Rand was concerned with BEHAVIOR. "Wear" her philosophy in your actions not on your sleeve. When you choose the latter you had best be consistent with her views.

By representing the former David, you have done more for the works of Rand than perhaps anyone. Had you arrived on the scene sooner, it would not have been almost 70 years since the publishing of Atlas without any significant political results!

However, it will not be another 70 before the results of her (and your) efforts manifest........

Txs David.

I would answer Yes and No. Yes: reason is the only absolute and standard for all knowledge, and all rational questions are valid (understanding that some questions are ill-formed or based on invalid assumptions). And yes, knowledge is contextual.
No: While I agree that this approach settles the "open. vs. closed" issue, there are other issues. Those on the "closed" side claim that Rand wanted "Objectivism" to stand just for her views, nothing less but nothing more. Doesn't make sense to me, but there we are.....

I want to be careful here. I am not the scholar. Hopefully, TAS scholars will reply to your point.

I would argue that if Reason must be man's only absolute, and I agree that it must, then all rational questions are valid, all answers tentative. That is because all knowledge is contextual.

If the above is true, then the answer to the so-called "open vs closed" question becomes logically obvious, does it not?

I would argue that if Reason must be man's only absolute, and I agree that it must, then all rational questions are valid, all answers tentative. That is because all knowledge is contextual.

If the above is true, then the answer to the so-called "open vs closed" question becomes logically obvious, does it not?

Hi Zenphany, I gave a definition of Objectivism in Contested Legacy, chap 5--the essential principles that differentiate Objectivism from all other philosophies.http://atlassociety.org/about-us/about-us-ar.... See section "What is Objectivism?"

Yes.I personally favor the more "open" position, within the structure of Objectivism.

Indeed.

Certainly one can define Objectivism without referencing AR, but her genius was in laying out her philosophy and the development of it in such a way (her fiction as well as non-fiction plus her lectures/speeches) that its sometimes difficult to discuss or explore in ways any better than what she's already done.

As to Humanism, or any other human-centric philosophy, although one might find similarities in parts that seem to fit or mesh with some parts of Objectivism, they are not the same and it's always necessary to take them out of context of the whole to allow that similarity. That is a perilous way to think, without a solid, foundational understanding of the whole of Objectivism. AR has provided the foundation and the important structural components, leaving it to us to add the finish and trim with each new generation and new discoveries in reality.

I agree...subtract the mysticism and "Natural Rights" still stands. I think I stated at least once in my book: "Mankind has a natural given right, as a result of becoming fully conscious beings, to be happy, free and prosperous."
...and Yes, I do include, those that have a potential to be.

Strictly speaking, not a Humanist, but Objectivism embraces much of the Humanist philosophy.They overlap to a surprising degree.My son's funeral was conducted by a female secular humanist rabbi. When the funeral overflowed the small chapel, it was moved to a bigger venue with many confused people, some of whom wondered if they were committing a sin.

You're very welcome. Appreciate the comment.

Thank you

This is an interesting point, though I would guess you agree Objectivism is a category of philosophy? Objectivism is objective, rational, egoist, capitalist, and romantic -- as opposed to mystic, nominal, subjective, collective, or post-modern. Great. How then does objectivism not belong to the group of rational philosophies? Ayn Rand was an admirer of Aristotle and her work shared many similar elements. This does not make her work Aristotlean per se, but it would seem we can categorize her work as belonging to groups described by the features you define above. To the best of my knowledge, category denotes similarity of attributes, not identity. While Objectivism may be the only philosophy with an objective metaphysics, certainly other philosophies are capitalistic, for example.

No she did not, she loved that US and its founding principles - which is Natural Rights. Logically any ethics based in reality is a Natural Rights ethics - that is basic logic. http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...

No, Rand rejected the notion of "natural rights" explicitly. Objectivism's ethics and conception of rights are not based on that.

Objectivism's political-ethics is a sub-category of Natural Rights.

I think that is correct in a Venn diagram sense, but you have to be careful about what conclusion you draw from it.

For what it's worth, here is an excerpt for the entry on Rand that I wrote for The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, ed Tom Flynn, Prometheus Books:

Humanism. Rand held that religion is a primitive effort to serve a genuine human need for a comprehensive worldview and moral code, but that it is based on an irrational belief in the supernatural. Similarly, she held that religious notions of reverence and worship reflect the idealism of moral aspiration but are misdirected toward the suprahuman. "It is this highest level of man's emotions," she wrote, "that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man. ... The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term' are those who see man's highest potential and strive to actualize it."

ln this respect, Rand was clearly a humanist. Like other humanists. she believed that morality must be based on human nature rather than divine commands. She admired classical civilization as well as the modem Enlightenment, and regarded the medieval era as a dark interlude. She did not describe herself as a humanist, however, believing that the term was too general to be useful in describing a philosophical standpoint. She would have rejected many of the points in such humanist manifestos as the Council for Secular Humanism s "Affirmations of Humanism." Instead, she coined the term Objectivism as the name of her philosophy.