Discussion History UsefulNotes / Objectivism

The core tenent of Objectivism is that there is one true worldview. That worldview is implicity defined by Rand herself. Rand believed that her philosophy had no flaws, and that to question them was \\\"Anti-Life.\\\" I am not trying to insult you or hurt you by saying this. I am telling you this in order to give you a context for what I am about to say next: The new generation of Objectivists has evolved Rand\\\'s theories. This places a great distance between modern Objectivists and the Objectivists of the past. Each hold different worldviews. By questioning, rewriting, and expanding upon her philosophies, you and most modern Objectivists have inadvertently founded a revisionist \\\"New School\\\" of Objectivist thinking. What I\\\'m saying here is that we need to put Objectivism in a context, go into it\\\'s history, and it\\\'s innovations. We need more context, more history, and more on how traditionalist Objectivist views have given way to a more inclusive Objectivist worldview. You \\\'\\\'need\\\'\\\' to tell us these things in as neutral a way as possible in order to make the Useful Notes section more complete.

And, as you may recall by looking at the wiki\\\'s edit history, \\\'\\\'I\\\'\\\' added in the parts about Hickman and Rand\\\'s rather scathing biography, while you have been deleting all other mentions of Hickman, regardless of who put them there and however inflammatory they may have been, instead of toning some of them down. And yes, I take the blame for one of them, and apologize. These don\\\'t render my other critiques irrelevant. When it comes to philosophy, rejecting it\\\'s context comes across as a lie of omission. Look at communism. In itself, \\\"Each according to his ability and need\\\" is a philosophy that needs to be looked at in terms of how it impacted society and history. It\\\'s the same with Objectivism.