[001]
StudiodeKadent
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
Objectivist scholarship has made several advances since Rand\'s death and the simple fact of the matter is Ayn Rand does not \
to:
Objectivist scholarship has made several advances since Rand\\\'s death and the simple fact of the matter is Ayn Rand does not \\\"own\\\" Objectivism.
It is important to represent Objectivism in an up to date fashion. After all, a UsefulNotes article on biology that didn\\\'t deal with advances in the field would be useless.
Rand\\\'s positions on, say, gender roles (positions which most modern day Objectivists believe \\\'\\\'contradict\\\'\\\' Objectivist Epistemology and Metaphysics (see \\\'\\\'Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand\\\'\\\' published by Penn State Press)) or homosexuality (again, a position most Objectivists believe contradicts her underlying philosophy (see Chris Matthew Sciabarra\\\'s \\\'\\\'Ayn Rand, Homosexuality and Human Liberation\\\'\\\')) are absolutely inessential to Objectivism. Apart from the fact they arguably are contradictions of the more fundamental philosophical tenets she espoused, they have \\\'\\\'no import whatsoever\\\'\\\' on her epistemology, politics, metaphysics or ethics. They are \\\'\\\'flawed and false applications\\\'\\\' of the underlying principles.
This page deals with the underlying principles. It \\\'\\\'deliberately avoids\\\'\\\' spelling out specific applications because \\\'\\\'reasonable people acting in accordance with the same principles can still disagree on the correct application\\\'\\\'. This fact is acknowledged by and built into Objectivist epistemology (empirical context, for instance). They can also be acting on different levels of knowledge about a specific subject, and an important part of Objectivist ethics is distinguishing between an error of knowledge and a deliberate refusal to be rational.
For all the accusations that members of Objectivism\\\'s {{Hatedom}} fling towards Objectivists for being \\\"Rand worshippers,\\\" it is the \\\'\\\'Objectivists\\\'\\\' that want to move beyond Ayn Rand herself and actually work on advancing and evolving the philosophy. The {{Hatedom}} on the other hand is still utterly fixated on Rand herself to a point that would probably even embarrass the most fundamentalist Randroid out there.
I don\\\'t care if Ayn Rand said her philosophy shouldn\\\'t be revised and that to be an Objectivist one must accept everything she wrote. \\\'\\\'On that issue she was wrong\\\'\\\'. Nathaniel Branden and David Kelley (the latter being the head of The Atlas Society) both agree with me, as do several Rand-influenced academics such as Chris Matthew Sciabarra (who has been \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more effective at purging the Objectivist movement of its residual anti-nonheterosexual sentiments \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' demonstrating the flaws in Rand\\\'s uninformed position than any number of Objectivism\\\'s {{Hatedom}} who screech \\\"Ayn Rand was incorrect about the morality of homosexuality and therefore [[YouFailLogicForever every single thing she said was false and anyone that shares her positions on anything else is a gay basher]]\\\").
Shrieker was correct that ideally, Rand\\\'s personality would be a non-issue. Only the most insane StrawFeminist would argue that Aristotelian logic is sexist because Aristotle was a wife-beater. And yes, the cultlike devotion of \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' nominally-Objectivist people (who can be utter fundamentalists) has made Rand\\\'s personal virtues and vices a much more important issue than it should be. But Objectivism\\\'s {{Hatedom}} make it an issue just as much, because \\\'\\\'argumentum ad hominem\\\'\\\' is much easier than rational argument.
I should add, we actually have an author page for AynRand and it does mention her DracoInLeatherPants-ing of Hickman, as well as the hypocrisy she at times succumbed to. I didn\\\'t delete those mentions either. I separated them into a different paragraph because her personality issues, quirks and such should be dealt with as a separate issue. And yes, I also specified that she\\\'s even been criticized by Objectivists for this, because it happens to be true. If you want to discuss her personality, the correct place to do it is on the AynRand page, not the main page here.
It is important to represent Objectivism in an up to date fashion. After all, a UsefulNotes article on biology that didn\\\'t deal with advances in the field would be useless.
Rand\\\'s positions on, say, gender roles (positions which most modern day Objectivists believe \\\'\\\'contradict\\\'\\\' Objectivist Epistemology and Metaphysics (see \\\'\\\'Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand\\\'\\\' published by Penn State Press)) or homosexuality (again, a position most Objectivists believe contradicts her underlying philosophy (see Chris Matthew Sciabarra\\\'s \\\'\\\'Ayn Rand, Homosexuality and Human Liberation\\\'\\\')) are absolutely inessential to Objectivism. Apart from the fact they arguably are contradictions of the more fundamental philosophical tenets she espoused, they have \\\'\\\'no import whatsoever\\\'\\\' on her epistemology, politics, metaphysics or ethics. They are \\\'\\\'flawed and false applications\\\'\\\' of the underlying principles.
This page deals with the underlying principles. It \\\'\\\'deliberately avoids\\\'\\\' spelling out specific applications because \\\'\\\'reasonable people acting in accordance with the same principles can still disagree on the correct application\\\'\\\'. This fact is acknowledged by and built into Objectivist epistemology (empirical context, for instance). They can also be acting on different levels of knowledge about a specific subject, and an important part of Objectivist ethics is distinguishing between an error of knowledge and a deliberate refusal to be rational.
For all the accusations that members of Objectivism\\\'s {{Hatedom}} fling towards Objectivists for being \\\"Rand worshippers,\\\" it is the \\\'\\\'Objectivists\\\'\\\' that want to move beyond Ayn Rand herself and actually work on advancing and evolving the philosophy. The {{Hatedom}} on the other hand is still utterly fixated on Rand herself to a point that would probably even embarrass the most fundamentalist Randroid out there.
I don\\\'t care if Ayn Rand said her philosophy shouldn\\\'t be revised and that to be an Objectivist one must accept everything she wrote. \\\'\\\'On that issue she was wrong\\\'\\\'. Nathaniel Branden and David Kelley (the latter being the head of The Atlas Society) both agree with me, as do several Rand-influenced academics such as Chris Matthew Sciabarra (who has been \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' more effective at purging the Objectivist movement of its residual anti-nonheterosexual sentiments \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' demonstrating the flaws in Rand\\\'s uninformed position than any number of Objectivism\\\'s {{Hatedom}} who screech \\\"Ayn Rand was incorrect about the morality of homosexuality and therefore [[YouFailLogicForever every single thing she said was false and anyone that shares her positions on anything else is a gay basher]]\\\").
Shrieker was correct that ideally, Rand\\\'s personality would be a non-issue. Only the most insane StrawFeminist would argue that Aristotelian logic is sexist because Aristotle was a wife-beater. And yes, the cultlike devotion of \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' nominally-Objectivist people (who can be utter fundamentalists) has made Rand\\\'s personal virtues and vices a much more important issue than it should be. But Objectivism\\\'s {{Hatedom}} make it an issue just as much, because \\\'\\\'argumentum ad hominem\\\'\\\' is much easier than rational argument.
I should add, we actually have an author page for AynRand and it does mention her DracoInLeatherPants-ing of Hickman, as well as the hypocrisy she at times succumbed to. I didn\\\'t delete those mentions either. I separated them into a different paragraph because her personality issues, quirks and such should be dealt with as a separate issue. And yes, I also specified that she\\\'s even been criticized by Objectivists for this, because it happens to be true. If you want to discuss her personality, the correct place to do it is on the AynRand page, not the main page here.
