It strikes me as a friendly non-objectivist outsider that the open interpretation is obviously the right one for objectivists. The closed alternative, if taken literally, leads to attributing inerrancy and something approaching philosophical omniscience to Ayn Rand, notions hardly rational and more typical of religions. There seems still to be some of that going around among objectivists. To evolve in a healthy way, a school of philosophy needs not only to add to and expand on its founder’s ideas, but also to correct its founder’s errors and apply its principles and techniques to things and areas its founder never thought of.
I'm reminded of the quote from Stephen Hopkins in the musical 1776: "Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything."
Have been anxiously hoping you would express your thoughts on the recent debate. Thanks, Rob, for a reasoned response. What most had me agreeing with your current position (and I was also conflicted) in the past was just the very first word in the book title "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology." That made me think 'So there's more to come!'
Which is more likely, I see now, if today's thinkers are just bold enough to suggest new insights.
I agree with Russell. Not being able to review and fix the U.S. Constitution via a knock down convention, we live with an outdated constitution where people debate the "current meaning" of things that the creators had no idea of at the time. We must allow for change!
As I was reading this I was thinking of the United States Constitution. It does turn 250 years old in three years. I consider it the greatest document in the history of mankind,. It was not designed to be 'closed', but the fundamentals underlying it were. I consider Objectivism the greatest fundamental set of ideas in history, primarily because it does finally provide the total philosophical foundation the Constitution always lacked. And I think it should be considered similarly to the Constitution. It's fundamental ideas should be, and to my mind are closed, but that doesn't mean those fundamental ideas can't be built on, improved, and enhanced in the future. Like the improvements in Newton's ideas by Einstein and the better understanding of blood types that occurred when we discovered the RH factor, Objectivism can never be fundamentally changed, but it can and should be much more than it is now. So I ask, "Is the Constitution just those words written on a document in 1787 that formalized the creation of the United States or is it something much, much more today both for good and bad?" I think it is both, just as I think Objectivism is both Ayn Rand's specific written philosophy, and all the enhancements to it that have come from people like Peikoff, Binswanger, Samieri and Tara Smith to name just a few. One critical difference, though, is that no ideas should ever be attached to it that are opposed to it's basic principles as laid out by Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, I believe too many ideas have become attached to the Constitution that are, indeed, fundamentally opposed to it's basic principles. Objectivism is far too important to ever let that happen. Thankfully, Ayn Rand's insistence on proper reality based definitions and concepts should preclude that from happening.
Yes, some people--I think it was Leonard Pickoff--used the Constitution as a metaphor for how Ayn Rand's writings fixed and established the meaning of Objectivism. But we are beset all the time by difficult questions of constitutional interpretation for things that the Founder could not have anticipated. And Madison even wrote in a 9th Amendment that specifically invites judges to add new constitutional protections for liberty.
Prediction: Objectivism will itself come to be understood as Aristotelian. Objectivism will start to have significant impact culturally only after a resurgence of interest in Aristotle and Aristotelian scholarship.
I think it's similar to the issue of open versus closed immigration. Yes, closing your borders closed keeps out the riff raff and other undesirables. But it comes at the expense of less vibrancy and opportunity for improvement. I suspect your position is determined largely by your psychology and what you prioritise - do you have a negative/defensive mindset focused on keeping what you've got, or a more positive mindset focused on opportunity and improvement.
It strikes me as a friendly non-objectivist outsider that the open interpretation is obviously the right one for objectivists. The closed alternative, if taken literally, leads to attributing inerrancy and something approaching philosophical omniscience to Ayn Rand, notions hardly rational and more typical of religions. There seems still to be some of that going around among objectivists. To evolve in a healthy way, a school of philosophy needs not only to add to and expand on its founder’s ideas, but also to correct its founder’s errors and apply its principles and techniques to things and areas its founder never thought of.
I'm reminded of the quote from Stephen Hopkins in the musical 1776: "Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything."
I nog for exploration. Except not with carbon filaments not rated for deep depths.
Have been anxiously hoping you would express your thoughts on the recent debate. Thanks, Rob, for a reasoned response. What most had me agreeing with your current position (and I was also conflicted) in the past was just the very first word in the book title "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology." That made me think 'So there's more to come!'
Which is more likely, I see now, if today's thinkers are just bold enough to suggest new insights.
I agree with Russell. Not being able to review and fix the U.S. Constitution via a knock down convention, we live with an outdated constitution where people debate the "current meaning" of things that the creators had no idea of at the time. We must allow for change!
As I was reading this I was thinking of the United States Constitution. It does turn 250 years old in three years. I consider it the greatest document in the history of mankind,. It was not designed to be 'closed', but the fundamentals underlying it were. I consider Objectivism the greatest fundamental set of ideas in history, primarily because it does finally provide the total philosophical foundation the Constitution always lacked. And I think it should be considered similarly to the Constitution. It's fundamental ideas should be, and to my mind are closed, but that doesn't mean those fundamental ideas can't be built on, improved, and enhanced in the future. Like the improvements in Newton's ideas by Einstein and the better understanding of blood types that occurred when we discovered the RH factor, Objectivism can never be fundamentally changed, but it can and should be much more than it is now. So I ask, "Is the Constitution just those words written on a document in 1787 that formalized the creation of the United States or is it something much, much more today both for good and bad?" I think it is both, just as I think Objectivism is both Ayn Rand's specific written philosophy, and all the enhancements to it that have come from people like Peikoff, Binswanger, Samieri and Tara Smith to name just a few. One critical difference, though, is that no ideas should ever be attached to it that are opposed to it's basic principles as laid out by Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, I believe too many ideas have become attached to the Constitution that are, indeed, fundamentally opposed to it's basic principles. Objectivism is far too important to ever let that happen. Thankfully, Ayn Rand's insistence on proper reality based definitions and concepts should preclude that from happening.
Yes, some people--I think it was Leonard Pickoff--used the Constitution as a metaphor for how Ayn Rand's writings fixed and established the meaning of Objectivism. But we are beset all the time by difficult questions of constitutional interpretation for things that the Founder could not have anticipated. And Madison even wrote in a 9th Amendment that specifically invites judges to add new constitutional protections for liberty.
Prediction: Objectivism will itself come to be understood as Aristotelian. Objectivism will start to have significant impact culturally only after a resurgence of interest in Aristotle and Aristotelian scholarship.
I think it's similar to the issue of open versus closed immigration. Yes, closing your borders closed keeps out the riff raff and other undesirables. But it comes at the expense of less vibrancy and opportunity for improvement. I suspect your position is determined largely by your psychology and what you prioritise - do you have a negative/defensive mindset focused on keeping what you've got, or a more positive mindset focused on opportunity and improvement.