I've been having similar thoughts and am curious, if people do create a unique name for their individual philosophy, do you think it should reference objectivism in any way to indicate the overlap in belief? In other words, are you advocating names like “The Gultch” (Those who know, know) or names that are completely removed?
I don't think it would be proper to reference Ayn Rand in such a name. It would imply that she would be in agreement, to begin with, which is obviously impossible and inappropriate to claim. And it would seem a lot like an attempt to play on her fame and notoriety. I wouldn't see a problem with referring to Objectivism in discussions, as in, "My philosophy, which is influenced by Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, says..." But putting a reference in a name wouldn't allow for any such clarification.
Yes, that’s the ad hominem, along with the allegation of “TDS”. If you don’t support Trump, you must be insane. But as I said in my other reply, I do appreciate your candor.
The definition of Objectivism is the philosophy developed by Ayn Rand. I simply gave my own take on *who* is an Objectivist, which is a different question.
You can agree with Rand's principles first-handed, so I don't see an issue there. If you disagree with her philosophy's basic principles, then you're not an Objectivist. Which is fine of course. You can perhaps call yourself a Randian if you're influenced by her but have developed your own principles (like Aristotelian/Platonist/Kantian).
I’m pretty sure we’re generally in agreement here. My point was that one should validate one’s philosophy oneself, and not just accept Rand’s philosophy. Agreement is not second-handed, but blind acceptance would be. Otherwise, you’re basically restating what I said in my essay, although I would not condone calling yourself a “Randian.”
I doubt Dr. Peikoff has the same thinking capacity he had 5 years ago, let alone 10. I think that an Objectivist is simply someone who understands and actively applies Rand's basic principles of Objectivism. If you get sucked into the culture wars and suspend your mind, you're drifting away from Objectivism.
I have no knowledge about Peikoff's mental state, and all I can judge is the endorsement that he wrote and that the site published. And as I stated, I simply don't want to be associated with that endorsement.
I know that one can come up with various definitions of the word "Objectivist," as you've done here, but that's irrelevant to my point. I even disagree that anyone should "actively apply Rand's basic principles of Objectivism." Ultimately, one should apply the principles they identify themselves based on the use of their own minds. If one just applies Rand's principles, then one is acting as a second-hander.
Finally, it's not getting "sucked into the culture wars" to want to spread good ideas and not get weighed down by people who engage in egregious rationalism. That's exactly what I'm trying to do.
I've been having similar thoughts and am curious, if people do create a unique name for their individual philosophy, do you think it should reference objectivism in any way to indicate the overlap in belief? In other words, are you advocating names like “The Gultch” (Those who know, know) or names that are completely removed?
I don't think it would be proper to reference Ayn Rand in such a name. It would imply that she would be in agreement, to begin with, which is obviously impossible and inappropriate to claim. And it would seem a lot like an attempt to play on her fame and notoriety. I wouldn't see a problem with referring to Objectivism in discussions, as in, "My philosophy, which is influenced by Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, says..." But putting a reference in a name wouldn't allow for any such clarification.
Yeah, that makes sense
I agree one shouldn't hold someone else's philosophy as a primary. Your philosophy should subsume, not be subsumed, by the philosophy of others.
What's wrong with endorsing Trump and disparaging Kamala? No sane person could choose otherwise.
Yes, that’s the ad hominem, along with the allegation of “TDS”. If you don’t support Trump, you must be insane. But as I said in my other reply, I do appreciate your candor.
The definition of Objectivism is the philosophy developed by Ayn Rand. I simply gave my own take on *who* is an Objectivist, which is a different question.
You can agree with Rand's principles first-handed, so I don't see an issue there. If you disagree with her philosophy's basic principles, then you're not an Objectivist. Which is fine of course. You can perhaps call yourself a Randian if you're influenced by her but have developed your own principles (like Aristotelian/Platonist/Kantian).
I’m pretty sure we’re generally in agreement here. My point was that one should validate one’s philosophy oneself, and not just accept Rand’s philosophy. Agreement is not second-handed, but blind acceptance would be. Otherwise, you’re basically restating what I said in my essay, although I would not condone calling yourself a “Randian.”
I doubt Dr. Peikoff has the same thinking capacity he had 5 years ago, let alone 10. I think that an Objectivist is simply someone who understands and actively applies Rand's basic principles of Objectivism. If you get sucked into the culture wars and suspend your mind, you're drifting away from Objectivism.
I have no knowledge about Peikoff's mental state, and all I can judge is the endorsement that he wrote and that the site published. And as I stated, I simply don't want to be associated with that endorsement.
I know that one can come up with various definitions of the word "Objectivist," as you've done here, but that's irrelevant to my point. I even disagree that anyone should "actively apply Rand's basic principles of Objectivism." Ultimately, one should apply the principles they identify themselves based on the use of their own minds. If one just applies Rand's principles, then one is acting as a second-hander.
Finally, it's not getting "sucked into the culture wars" to want to spread good ideas and not get weighed down by people who engage in egregious rationalism. That's exactly what I'm trying to do.