Objections to Objectivism. On this site I think ok if there is some case presented. For example the post on the discussion between AR and John Hospers on here 11 days ago, there was a comment by Hiraghm which got some support.
Hospers did get AR on the 'back foot'. However, it is often the case that examples can be contrived to oppose any general philosophical view. That may have been what was happening.
Often in persuasion, style matters more than substance. Consider the way Milton Friedman answered hostile questions, not just with countering logic but polite good humor, AR did that - but not always.

I can't agree that broken or incomplete philosophies add anything to the study of Solver's three questions. I think they distract and detract from such a study. Particularly, religion unless you maintain that any study of philosophy should include the supernatural and the magic. Religion, though claimed by it's adherents to be a philosophy, is not a true philosophy since it relies on messages and instructions from a realm and an individual that doesn't exist in the world of man.

Snezzy; Though I followed your 1st comment above and agreed with the statement that a comparative philosophy that only accepted some of AR's Objectivism was in no way Objectivism. But the statement I'm responding to here confuses me. Objectivism is above all a rational and logical system for the human condition of the individual man, and since AR could not have been experienced or familiar with every such or able to predict future developments, an Objectivist application to those, I consider as an extension or more detailed explanation of Objectivism applied to those.

Further, since Objectivism's primary objective is the search and determination of truth for the individual, how could and idea that is true not be a part of Objectivism. Although Objectivism is a complete logical and rational system, it is not closed to only those experiences of familiarity familiar to AR. It wouldn't be a workable philosophy if so.

I don't agree that it's a closed system. I agree that it's a complete logical system, though it hasn't yet been applied to every situation and condition of humanity. And I welcome Objectivist analysis of those that AR hadn't dealt with or weren't within her immediate experience, though I think those were not that numerous.

I am surprised you agree with the closed system, Zen

Respectfully, Objectivism, if it is to be at all meaningful, is a logical system, like Euclidean Geometry. Many people may contribute to it. There is a standard for whether their positions are Objective or not, just as there is in Science. In Euclidean Geometry there are three axioms. Deriving from the three axioms are part of the geometry.
What your argument is-an historical study for what Rand actually said. Which means it is dead. We can show some proofs that Euclid made were wrong and not consistent with Euclidean Geometry. This does not mean it is a free-for-all. You do not have to accept someone's proposition that something is Objectivist. They must prove by the rules of logic and evidence. We do not need a governing body on Euclidean Geometry any more than Objectivism. If Objectivism is that weak of a logical system which cannot withstand charlatans and incorrect propositions-then it would not be a useful system anyway. Your last statement has no logical bearing. Why is something that is true, not Objectivist? I would argue the opposite. Objectivism is a SYSTEM for how we define what is true. (IF it is not, why be a part of it?) There are all sorts of areas of further study if Objectivism is a logical system. But you and Peikoff say no. Economics is in sore need of an Objectivist system. Yet, closed Objectivism, says there is nothing left to be said. This has caused a lack of meaningful scholarship across many areas as a result.

This is not true. Extensions to Objectivism, or work within the framework of Objectivism are exactly that. They are not Objectivism itself.

Without the standard of what Rand wrote and spoke, everything comes loose. Imagine a collection of competing versions of Objectivism, some of which contradict others. Enemies of Objectivism, in particular, would be happy to pose as Objectivist scholars, working from within to destroy Rands work by extending it, in her name, in ways designed to support their particular mysticism. Various pseudo-Objectivist anarchist communes I have known come to mind.

During Rand's lifetime I was involved in a naive but anti-Rand group that proclaimed allegiance to (but disagreement with) Rand. One of the members was an actual thief who stole money from the group's funds.

Let us be precise. Distinguish Objectivism from Gloopism. Just because a an idea is true does not make it part of Objectivism.

Yep. Most religions answer these questions this way:
1. God is so. The Holy Words are so.
2. The Holy Words tell us God wrote the Holy Words. Therefore, God said so.
3. We follow the Holy Word.

The glue for this type of thinking is faith and collective thought.

Good point. Sophistry has been my argument. +1

Or like the United States Constitution. Where all kinds of stuff gets voted on to create more and more contradictions. Yet it is still the United States Constitution.
Any unthinking ends justify the means collective can damage just about anything.

excellent Snezzy. +1

Objectivism, like Euclidean Geometry, is a logical system. It is NOT just what Euclid or Rand says. This not an exercise in History. Any ideas consistent or derived from the axioms of geometry or Objectism are Euclidean geometry or Objectivism. It is useless as a philosophy if it is only the study of what Rand said. People still add to Euclidean geometry today which is what makes the system so powerful. If Euclidean Geometry was limited to only what Euclid said, it would provide little value today. The same is true with Objectivism.

Exactly. Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics.

All philosophies, even the most rudimentary or the hopelessly broken, contribute to the study of these three aspects. Religion as well helps us "ring all the changes" of the possible formulations of answers, but on number 2 is almost invariably stuck on "God said so" or "We told you."

As Robin Field sung, philosophy asks three questions:
1. What is so?
2. How do you know?
3. What should you do?

Objectivism answers these questions in its own particular way, which is different from all other philosophies before it. Most people are not Objectivists.
Knowing what is the truth is requires getting one and two right.
If number one or two is wrong, for most people, then three becomes the mess we have today.

There are two separate questions, "What is the truth?" and "What is Objectivism?" that often are taken together. When Ayn Rand was alive, she defined whether or not some idea or concept was part of Objectivism, She did not claim that her words defined truth.

Because "Ayn Rand was right" so often about so many things, the distinction between her thought and truth was often difficult to discern, especially for those who wanted to agree with her.

Rand protected the name Objectivism fiercely, and disliked having anyone make pronouncements about what she was thinking. Misinterpretations of her words, both innocent and deliberate, occur to this day.

Leonard Peikoff expressed a proper view of how to add to Objectivism. He said (I paraphrase here from memory), "You can have your own philosophy that mostly agrees with Objectivism. But please don't call it Objectivism. Call it Gloopism, or something else. Not Objectivism."

Some people are careful to make these distinctions, while others are either sloppy or are actually working to tear down Rand's philosophy and replace it with something else of the same name.

More than once at Ford Hall Forum I heard questions such as, "Miss Rand, you believe XXX. So doesn't that mean you favor YYY?" Sometimes she would carefully explain why XXX did not lead to YYY. Other times she would attack the questioner, saying, "I never said XXX, and here is your motivation in claiming that I did ..."