วีดีโอ

If they'd worn the same colour suit I'd have been in real trouble.

Objectivism vs. objectivism. or Randianism vs. falsifible set of rational thoughts or Reality based dogma vs. real life. Capital O objectivism sucks just as much as Capital C critical theory.

“For all her popularity, however, only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. As a result, most of the serious philosophical work on Rand has appeared in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed journals, or in books, and the bibliography reflects this fact.” “Whereas Rand’s ideas and mode of presentation make Rand popular with many non-academics, they lead to the opposite outcome with academics. She developed some of her views in response to questions from her readers, but seldom took the time to defend them against possible objections or to reconcile them with the views expressed in her novels. Her philosophical essays lack the self-critical, detailed style of analytic philosophy, or any serious attempt to consider possible objections to her views. Her polemical style, often contemptuous tone, and the dogmatism and cult-like behavior of many of her fans also suggest that her work is not worth taking seriously.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In ancient Rome they had increased productivity!! I believed that should be discussed.

I want to address the distinction that Hicks made early on, which I found to be brilliant: Rand as artist vs. Rand as "scientist". A great paper from the 1970s I recommend is: "Prematurity and Uniqueness in Scientific Discovery", by Gunther Stent. One question Stent raises is: what is the difference between scientific genius vs. artistic genius? He directly poses the question, "are scientific creations any less unique than artistic creations?" He answers that, yes, they are, with the following argument. (Below, I will tie this all in with Rand.) If Shakespeare or Picasso had never lived, those specific great masterpieces that they created would never have been created. However, for any great scientist, sooner or later someone else would have discovered what they discovered. In fact, the book by Peter Bowler, a Darwin scholar, titled: "Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World Without Darwin", argues that sooner or later, (though perhaps many decades later), something resembling "Darwinism", though under another name, would surely have appeared, even if Darwin had never existed. (Alfred Russel Wallace's discoveries were very similar to Darwin's in key aspects, but Darwin's arguments in "Origin of Species" were way more deeply and fully developed than what Wallace would have ever been able to match. Put another way: though Wallace was a brilliant man, he could not have put together anything like the "one long argument" that Darwin offered in "Origin of Species"-- that massive integration of highly disparate data that showed the power of the notion of Natural Selection. Thus, Wallace was no substitute for Darwin, even though they both converged on the basic idea of Natural Selection.) If neither Shakespeare nor Darwin had ever lived, we would never have "King Lear" or "Hamlet"; but we would surely have something resembling "Darwinism". Or as Stent put it (paraphrasing): if Watson and Crick had never been born, someone would still have, sooner or later, discovered the DNA double-helix. Now imagine: If we say that Rand was akin to a scientist, but had died young or had never been born, would something resembling what we now know as "Objectivism"--though by a different name, have emerged from other philosophers? If yes, then she was therefore more akin to a scientist than to an artist, in developing Objectivism as a philosophical system. (No one questions that her novels were artistic creations.) Thus: If you write a novel, or compose a symphony, YOU GET TO PUT YOUR NAME ON IT, and you get to insist that NO ONE CAN CHANGE IT IN ANY WAY. You are an artist. But if you make a scientific discovery, you get no special "naming rights" for something that someone else would sooner or later have independently discovered. (Imagine Leibnitz and Newton, both fighting over the names "Leibnizian calculus" vs. "Newtonian calculus"!) To develop the Leibnitz/Newton calculus point: If ONE of them had discovered calculus and taught it to the other, would it then have been appropriate for the discoverer to insist on "naming rights", (i.e., "Newtonian calculus")? "But Rand was a philosopher, not a scientist", you say? Consider: Is philosophy more akin to science, or more akin to art? If philosophy is just my spewing out my feelings, then maybe it is akin to art (perhaps bad art, but still: art). But if philosophy is purported to be about identifying true things about the world, in that way it is much closer to science. And if philosophical truths are likely to be discovered (NOT "created"), eventually, by SOME philosopher, then the Leibnitz/Newton calculus example is on-point. **You don't get to insist that someone call it by a different name, if they believe they have found improvements on calculus.** All you can justifiably say is, Your new ideas are wrong--about CALCULUS." You don't get to say: Don't CALL IT calculus at all. Or consider: non-Euclidean geometry. It is different from Euclidean geometry, for sure: but it is still geometry. Likewise, I think we could have a non-Randian Objectivism, that would still be Objectivism. Consider: At what point would it be justified to say that "non-Euclidian geometry" is so radically different from Euclidian geometry, that you are justified in saying: YOU ARE CAUSING CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION BY INSISTING ON CALLING YOUR NEW GEOMETRY IDEAS--ideas you have added to Euclid's--"Geometry"? ********************************************************************* Who gets to be labeled "Christian"? There are hundreds of differing denominations of Christian churches. I don't think this causes too much confusion, trying to understand what "Christianity" really is. They ALL call themselves "Christians". Biddle drew a false dichotomy: that either "Objectivism" is just exactly and only Rand's specific notions, OR: "Objectivism" just means any old thing you want it to mean. (A kind of nominalism, perhaps? "Objectivism means whatever I arbitrarily say it is!") But Christianity does not mean: "any old thing I want it to mean". We have no trouble understanding "I am a Christian", whether the Pope says it, or Jerry Falwell says it. THERE IS NO CONFUSION, grasping what "Christian" means. Do I have to say, "I'm a Brandenian Objectivist"? Or, "I'm a Peikoffian Objectivist"? I do not believe that, per Rand's Razor, we are required to create such new concepts. Simply, "I am an Objectivist" was true when N. & B Branden said it after 1968. It was true when David Kelley said it after (whatever year that split occurred). If I believe Satan is Lord, and Jesus was just a sorry clown, I CANNOT label myself a Christian; though people as widely separated in theological beliefs as the Pope and Jerry Falwell can still be "Christians". If a fellow Objectivist has false ideas, rather than saying, "Don't call yourself an Objectivist", you need to say, "Your ideas are wrong, and are not consistent with Objectivism". ***************************************** Would Rand have accepted it if some group took SOME of her ideas, added their own, credited Rand for the ideas they did take from her, and DID NOT call themselves "Objectivists"? That is what Rand would prefer, right? Well, when one group did exactly that, (remember: crediting Rand for the ideas learned from her), she said they PLAGIARIZED HER IDEAS!! ("Plagiarizing her ideas" while crediting her for those same ideas? Rand was not rational in saying that.) Of course, I am referring to the Libertarian Party. It was fine for Rand to criticize the Libertarian Party. But they did exactly what Rand SAID she wanted people to do: They did not call it the "Objectivism Party" or the "Rand Party"--and they were happy to talk about how Rand's ideas inspired them. She accused them of "plagiarizing her ideas"!! Rand didn't grasp: If you properly credit your sources, (they did), and do not represent yourself as speaking for Rand or Objectivism, (they did not falsely represent themselves), that falls under the very definition of "fair use". To quote Rand: “There are sundry 'libertarians' who plagiarize the Objectivist theory of politics, while rejecting the metaphysics, epistemology and ethics on which it rests” (The Ayn Rand Letter, 28 January 1974) Notice Rand's stolen concept: "Plagiarize the Objectivist theory of politics". In fact, they "plagiarized" nothing: they were merely saying, they accept Rand's political positions, but not necessarily any other part of her philosophy. Being careful to differentiate what you accept and what you reject from Rand, and not calling yourself "The Objectivism Party", is not plagiarism. This was not an innocent "mistake", by Rand. **************************************** Another problem with definitions of terms: the term "capitalism", as understood by Leonard Peikoff: (I think this addresses a point that Biddle should have considered.) Peikoff, in his "analytic-synthetic dichotomy" paper, talked about a professor who blamed capitalism for coercive monopolies, in history. Peikoff argued back, as I understood it, that we didn't have genuine capitalism, and that thus we can't blame coercive monopolies on capitalism. This gets to a problem with Biddle's position on properly defining concepts, because I see Peikoff here making the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. (No *genuine* capitalist system would have allowed coercive monopolies--therefore, IT WASN"T GENUINE CAPITALISM.) If your definition of the term "capitalism" is such that no negative thing about it could conceivably be found, (because then it wouldn't be "Genuine" capitalism), then you are making capitalism all good BY DEFINITION. Is Biddle committing the "No true Objectivist" fallacy? Let's ponder that. Thanks.

So amusing that these people think that reality is something you simply identify. It's all as easy as that. The objectivism cult is so funny!

Ayn Rand copies Marx in her claims that her philosophy is a science. Marx was formulating his corpus when the social sciences and humanities were coalescing into the fields they have become today, and before science had codified its methodology. So, Marx can be forgiven. What is Rand's excuse, other than being a complete ignoramus and hypocrite (she was on the dole at the end of her life)?

"Objectivism is closed, but philosophy is open" as Onkhar said.

Canada has been destroyed by Trudeau. Corrupt corporations rule U.S. government. Rich get richer, poor get poorer now.

Atlas Society is skeptics masquerading as Objectivists so they can be as awful as possible

The fact that this debate exists should tell you everything.

Look what has happened to a much more simple term, capitalism. The conservatives have destroyed it by sneaking ideas into capitalism that are the opposite. Now people see Republicans as capitalist and they aren’t even close. If we are not diligent about preserving Objectivism as Ayn Rand’s philosophy, then it is at risk of being seen by the general public as something it isn’t. It will then be dead.

If you guys toss me 5 bucks, I'll take 5 minutes to take the hiss of your audio before posting a historic debate. Don't mean to be harsh but like damn.

‘’

Cameron doing good work.

Although Biddle had great points, he openly conceded the point. Rand does not own it, it can be expounded upon with more concepts that integrate with Oist axioms. That's the whole discussion.

As far as the question of being open or closed it is closed insofar as the original philosophy by it's name Objectivism. Stephen made very good points in terms of the fact that no single philosophy is entirely complete and that a philosophy is open in the sense that it leaves room for further development, but it needs to be clearly stated where Ayn Rand's philosophy ends and where the furtherance begins and should not be termed Objectivism

I like Dr. Hicks’s analogy with the way we treat Newtonian physics, but I think it may hurt his case. Newtonian physics is almost always in reference to both the content, his optics and mechanics, but often also the form, ray diagrams and differentials applied to mass points in physical space. People built on top of this, integrated it with other fields of science, and invented different useful mathematical systems, but they don’t get categorized under Newtonian physics. A good example of this is the d’Alembert system, which is a mathematical system that allows for Newtonian mechanics to be applied to continuums, ie wave mechanics. Typically these would get classified under Mechanics, but later “classical mechanics.” So I think with Objectivism you need to identify which parts, whether ideas, concepts, theories, arguments, etc are core to the philosophy. And in that sense it’s closed, just like Newtonian physics is. It’s an integrated whole developed by Rand which can serve as a basis for further development. But things that may be later discovered to be incorrect dont pose an issue because if it’s wrong it won’t actually integrate with the rest of the body of work, and in that regard get conceptually parsed out. This is what happened with Newton’s theory of light. While his corpuscular theory gets mentioned for historical context and within the rationale of the development of the science, it doesn’t get captured in Newtonian physics since it’s a nonessential part. There’s probably similarities here with the way we treat Aristotle’s work w.r.t. Aristotelianism. But something like Rand’s “crow epistemology” is not similar in that regard. Aristotle’s Platonic remnants don’t integrate with the core elements of his work, thus don’t get incorporated into Aristotelianism. The crow theory and measurement omission parts of Rand’s epistemology are absolutely fundamental, being the basis of the need and the process of abstraction and concept formation, and her aesthetics, etc. If you think those are wrong, then Objectivism is wrong and a new system should be erected. This would be like rejecting the concept of the material ether and theory of inertia; whether you agree with that or not (I don’t) you’d have to reject Newtonian physics and create a new system based on different core ideas, which is what Einstein and then Bohr, Heisenberg, etc did. This last example is a good thought point, being that both Relativity and Quantum physics use Newtons equations (pragmatically), but they aren’t built on top of Newtonian physics, they don’t integrate with it, and thus the creation of the term “classical physics” that encompasses logical theories of the physics of the material world, which Newtonian physics is a part, but the systems of Modern physics are not.

Very nice.

Regarding Rand's definition of "life" as a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action: if chemistry finds a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action that is not considered alive, such as a particular chemical reaction, would this fact negate Rand's definition of "life"? If Objectivism is a closed system, then finding non-living self-sustaining and self-generated action would not contradict Rand's definition of "life." However, if Objectivism is an open system, then it is open to change based on new evidence. And in the light of this new evidence from chemistry, Objectivism would be forced to rethink its definition of "life."

Two part question for Prof. Hicks: 1) What is Existentialism? 2) Who is its founder? For Craig Biddle: What is the name of Aristotle's philosophy? Or Kant's? (Not the name of their particular works).

Great lecture-- but the stage screen is too bright.

Rather an interesting modification of Marxism. Does not sound like cultural Marxism

* TIME HAS RUN OUT !! John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Don't ignore this message !! REPENT NOW !! God the Son - JESUS came in the flesh to die for sinners. TRUST that God raised JESUS from the dead !! By FAITH accept JESUS's blood alone as payment for your sins unto Salvation, to escape what's about to happen !! Don't say you were not warned !! ONLY true believers in JESUS will be suddenly taken. THEN comes 7 horrific years of God's JUDGEMENT, poured out on the world. I pray that the LORD will open your eyes and heart to the GOSPEL.

After listening to the debate and reading through the comments here, I appealed to my final authority (to paraphrase Craig) -- the requirements of my cognitive apparatus -- and concluded that the distinction between open and closed Objectivism is clear and meaningful to me so that I don't feel "muddled" and therefore will continue to use these terms to contextualize past and future contributions to the field. Consider this: Scholars make contextual comments to distinguish between Aristotle's philosophical writings and those of others in the Aristotelian tradition. When I read or hear the terms Aristotelianism, Platonism, Thomism, etc., I recognize these terms may very well refer to something other than what is found in the writings of Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, etc.

It's impossible to understand what they are saying

It seems irrational to describe philosophy as a scientific endeavor. My reasoning for saying this includes two primary points: 1) I've observed within many of the familiar philosophical systems a variety of unscientific premises, anti-scientific reasoning, logical fallacies, unsubstantiated claims, unresolved contradictions, mysticism and magic and ghosts and immortals, self-conflicting argumentation, manipulative guilt-trips, or fantasy - and these seem to be incompatible with science. 2) We can track the establishment and persistence of many familiar philosophies to people and groups who used threat of punishment or banishment or social exclusion or property loss, selective prejudicial publishing of only politically-favored ideas, intimidation, coercive demands from authority figures, infliction of injury or pain through torture, or other types of hostile ultimatum. The forced acceptance or forced prohibition of ideas via terror, threat, abuse, or coercion seems to be incompatible with science. Right now similar unscientific handling of philosophy on a very large scale can be observed first hand if you wish to do it. Just spend some time watching the behavior of those intellectuals in authority on most any university campus and you can witness for yourself the use of threat and coercion to impose on the students and the faculty a steady ideological indoctrination into anti-rational philosophical beliefs. College students are often ridiculed or shamed if they want some fact-checking. Logic is often absent. It is often not permitted to include a variety of ideas. Ideology professors do not seem to care much about whether their statements are truthful, trusted, or respected. Students' personal choice of belief is attacked and suppressed. In many well-documented cases the campus actually prohibits the participation of visiting intellectuals that were invited onto the campus by a group of students who desire to hear their ideas. During this event we can see Stephen's multiple attempts to unjustly package philosophy with actual scientific reasoning from topics such as geometry or physics. He steps out of philosophy, visits a science realm, illuminates how things work in that science realm, and then he hops back to philosophy while implying that the points which he highlighted about the science realm should somehow mean that philosophy is also "scientific". It is sleight-of-hand, and Stephen is trying to irrationally and deceptively trick his audience by improperly associating the two things. Did Ayn Rand's communications explicitly stress her own clear demand that no one else is permitted to edit the language of or rearrange elements of her stories or other work products. Yes. Did she provide clear logical reasoning for why she demanded this? YES. Do any of Rand's communications, materials, or behaviors include a note, indicator, phrase, or hint that could possibly be interpreted to mean that she would allow or tolerate other people attempting to modify her philosophical work? NO. From a standpoint of practical application of Objectivism, it seems to me that Rand was most predominantly valuing and describing for us Objectivism's "purpose". Then secondly valuing and describing for us Objectivism's "success indicators". Then thirdly valuing and describing for us Objectivism's "methods". With all three of these steps being logically linked in sequence with one another. Thinking backwards ... the methods are for achieving the success indicators, and the success indicators are for fulfilling the purpose. (step 1) I think that Rand's predominant purpose with Objectivism was to accurately identify the nature of a human consciousness, and develop a practical philosophy that guides and supports that nature of consciousness to function effectively in satisfying the essential needs and valued interests of its individual human owner. (step 2) I think that Rand provides us with many descriptions for possible success indicators, the achievement of which will help fulfill her previously described step 1 purpose. (step 3) I think that Rand provides us with many descriptions for possible methods (strategies, behaviors, approaches, etc) which will help accomplish her previously described step 2 success indicators. Rand consistently stressed the importance of applying her philosophical ideas to one's real world activity while one is alive in this real environment. She also consistently stressed the importance of an individual choosing to behave "as a human being" in the activity of their own volitional consciousness ... instead of selectively or passively behaving non-human/anti-human in that activity. She also consistently stressed the primacy of existence (reality) over consciousness. Some possible examples of Rand's step 2 success indicators for Objectivism: - An individual has trained themselves to remain rational whenever they come into contact with irrational people, irrational institutional forces, irrational statements, and anything else that is irrational. - An individual has trained themselves to live with uninterrupted self-esteem and self-respect. - A grouping of individuals has removed and prevented government coercive force from their domains of commerce and education. - A cultural style has established liberty and reason to be its most important standards. - A culture, via its own structure and governance, demonstrates sequentially-integrated philosophical elements: metaphysics governs epistemology which then governs ethics which then governs politics which then governs economics which then governs art, with all six elements being conceptually linked and non-contradictory. Some possible examples of Rand's step 3 methods for Objectivism: - An individual decisively manages their own self-concept, motives, communications, behaviors, and style in order to express rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride. - An individual evaluates themselves based upon whether they are living first-handed rather than second-handed. - An individual consistently rejects altruism, mysticism, and collectivism. - An individual steadily uses reason as their tool for gaining knowledge. - An individual adopts a chosen personal purpose as his decision for what will make him happy. If an increasing quantity of individuals are doing these things and moving toward these things (as well as other additional things which could rightfully be added to these lists), it will mean that Objectivism's purpose is becoming more fulfilled. While a person is studying Rand's non-fiction and fiction books, as well as her recorded presentations, her diaries, her bulletins, and her letters - that person can engage in their own enjoyable quest for personal growth by trying to identify which of Rand's statements and concepts they think ought to be called step 2 success indicators (along with their reasons why), and which of Rand's statements and concepts they think ought to be called step 3 methods (along with their reasons why). This organized way of thinking about Objectivism can enable students of this philosophy to build better skills with its application ... while also helping to illuminate this philosophy's texture, depth, and value ... while also increasing this philosophy's quantity of adherents and advocates ... while also leaving unchanged the original finalized content, meaning, details, and intent of this philosophy in accordance with the desires and reasons of Objectivism's inventor. Perhaps our debates and differences could become more focused on whether or not a particular Rand statement or concept ought to be in the "success indicators" container, or in the "methods" container. Some of you might think that the lists that I wrote above ought to be edited or re-arranged because I used the improper descriptors or put some ideas in the wrong container - and we could productively and enjoyably debate about this together and learn from each other. All involved could benefit from this type of debate, and this selected focus for debate could accelerate the fulfillment of Objectivism's purpose.

Mr. Hicks could lay the whole issue to rest by agreeing to simply add properly-labeled commentaries to Objectivism but not to incorporate anything into Objectivism. Problem solved.

Craig Biddle's philosophy is definitely a philosophy to be followed by librarians and achivists. There are only finite number of words in any language and old words get reused in different contexts and redefined over time. Philosophers can't stop this unless they become absolute dictators, but they can curate and help protect the language against concepts with implicit or explicit contradictions.

Enjoyed this debate greatly. Both gentlemen were excellent. Personally, I was most persuaded by the Stephen Hicks approach/argument. However, I would have liked to hear some specific examples/illustrations from each speaker of what is "open" and what is "closed" -- using specific quotes expressing Ayn Rand's fundamental ideas. Using examples it would be much easier to understand the extent of their actual disagreement -- which might not be as big as it looked by the end of the session.

As I see it, Craig won this debate, but Stephen still raises a valid concern about dogmatism

Love makes the world go around

Skip to 4:30

This is embarrassing. Craig is a fraud.

Great debate on a very specific issue! Hands down Craig won this debate! Well done Craig!

It's a closed system. If you open it, it's no longer objectivism. It's something else.

I didn't get to watch this when it first came out, but I'm finally caught up. I had always assumed that Objectivism was a closed system, but this talk enhanced my clarity on the subject. Stephen Hicks is correct in noting that philosophy is a science, but I think he makes a mistake by conflating the practice of science with a specific set of ideas. For example, Archimedes' Principle is an idea that is arrived at by practicing science. It is not the practice of science. It is a principle resulting from science. So too, Objectivism is a system of ideas that were generated through the practice of philosophy. Newton's Laws are not Archimedes' Principle, nor vice versa. Both are ideas resulting from the practice of science, but they are not the same thing. They are separate, and they deserve to be thought of separately, even when they are both used in concert. Objectivism is a system of Rational Egoism. Rational Egoism is a virtue-based framework for defining ones character and behavior based on adhering to a set of fundamental principles within an integrated set of virtues; (RIPJIPH) rationality, independence, productivity, justice, integrity, pride, honesty. Objectivism does not necessarily preclude any other systems of Rational Egoism. The way that people think about religion seems to set them up to make false assumptions about Rational Egoism. Religion is a subset of philosophy, which has Faith in a higher power as its base premise. Religion is generally exclusive. You pick one to the exclusion of all others. Every secular form of philosophy exists outside of the subset of philosophy known as religion. Humanism, Socialism, Existentialism, Pragmatism, Marxism and the majority of secular philosophies are also exclusive. Each new set gets a new name. None of these other philosophies are fully compatible with one another. This is because they are based on assertions rather than on empiricism. Rational Egoism is different. The subset of Rational Egoism as defined by Ayn Rand is the system that she named Objectivism. It is not comprehensive, but it is based on truth. Being of an empirical nature allows for truths defined within Objectivism to align with other truths not contained within the system of Ayn Rand. Truth is specific. A thing either is, or it is not. A is A. A is not non-A. Objectivism is also something specific. However, time and space are infinite, and therefore the truths that may exist within time and space may also be infinite. Religion says that God is the answer to everything, so you should stop asking questions and have Faith. Rational Egoism posits that we don't know all the answers, but that they are discoverable. Objectivism says, here are the things that Ayn Rand figured out. Use them or don't. There are any number of truths which might integrate with Objectivism. If Ayn Rand didn't figure them out, then they are not part of her system. If you figured them out, then they are part of your system. Ayn Rand is not a demi-God, and neither are any of us. She deserves credit for what she achieved, just as you deserve credit for what you achieve. If you can write it in a book and publish it, then you can formally name your own set of philosophical truths.

Is there a trascript of this discussion? If so, please let me know how to find it. Thanks.

Objectivism is indeed "closed" which makes it a religion (ironically enough), and ensures it remains false. It's fine for Ayn Rand to have a cut following, I suppose, but that takes me out of the game. There are plenty of more serious thinkers out there.

I like Stephen Hicks, but he didn't score a single point here. Objectivism is not something you do, it is a describable set of ideas. Philosophy is what you do, but he seems to want to make the "doing" of philosophy based on Rand into objectivism, when it needn't be and for clarity's sake shouldn't be. Why confuse this easy issue unless there is another motive? I actually got the feeling that Stephen didn't totally agree with the side he was debating for.

For some reason Objectivists in their various factions don't want to talk the philosophy's real problem: Rand's novels and a lot of the supporting media present Objectivism as a kind of transhumanist software upgrade for the human mind, like something out of science fiction. Perhaps it wouldn't work in the cartoonish way like in the movie _Limitless,_ but Objectivists who install and use the philosophy correctly should stand out as noticeably enhanced against the human baseline, again, if the philosophy worked according the way it is implicitly shown in the Objectivist media. Instead, in the real world, many Rand obsessives are pretty ordinary, while other people who become successful didn't need Rand's help. Objectivists criticize Christianity a lot, for example, so how can they explain the existence of the multimillionaire financial advisor Dave Ramsey, who is an evangelical Christian? Or more interestingly, given how many Objectivists lately, like that Greek fellow in the UK, are denouncing "tribalism," how can they explain the fact that in the United States, at least, tribally-oriented South Asian immigrants are flourishing as entrepreneurs and capitalists, especially in the hotel business? Just witness one of their community weddings, and you'll notice that everyone there is part of an extended family, which is the definition of a tribe. They are simply not living as Ayn-Randian atomized individualists, and their system is working regardless.

Open or closed, our misrulers are not threatened by Objectivists in the least. That's why you guys can engage in Objectivist theater like denouncing Immanuel Kant all you want without running the risk of being canceled. The people in power are just not invested in Kant's reputation.

Isn't it only Americans and teenagers who take Rand's ideas seriously?

I discussed it here: aynrandcontrahumannature. blogspot .com/

I discussed the debate at the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature Blog

Didn’t Ayn Rand say that every word, name, or label is the final point of concept formation with the necessary methodology of observation and induction before the final point? If we think of it this way, then we can say Objectivism as the name of the philosophy developed by Ayn Rand was chosen and used because it is the final point of concept formation and the appropriate name of the systematic philosophy that was developed by Rand’s observations and abstractions of the fundamental elements in Objectivism. If we agree on and fully grasp the fundamentals and axioms of Objectivism, as a name or label, then any further developments and explanations should still be recognized as the same thing, given that the fundamentals are not tweaked. For example, if we all agree on what the fundamental elements should be to constitute the concept of a table, any further changes or expansions, let’s say styles and colors, won’t really matter, as long as we don’t change the fundamental elements that are key to identifying a table. With that, I don’t see why Craig is so worried about adding things to Objectivism will change it so dramatically and make it a chaos. It will still be clear what Objectivism is if the fundamentals are untouched. Another interesting thought is what if Ayn Rand passed away after she developed her theory of ethics and before her theory of epidemiology, and called her philosophy Objectivism already? And say a person later used her theory of ethics to develop what today we’ll call the Objectivist epistemology. In that case, should that person’s new expansion be called Objectivism, because it is reasonable to assume that had Ayn Rand lived longer to see his work, she would agree with his ideas.

Hicks has the better argument. Rand clearly saw her philosophical work as creating a concept, not a particular. She clarified many concepts: capitalism, egoism, objectivity, etc. And integrated the whole. The original formulation should be called just that, the original formulation.

Question 1. Is addressing differences individuals can have in the application of the ideas of Objectivism as created by Ayn Rand a different question than the theme for this debate? For example - 2. Was Nathaniel Branden's work changing Rands's philosophy or developing and clarifying how to apply objectivism in the face of life's challenges? Could this be the difference between the open and closed disagreement What Vs How?

This quote by Ayn Rand (in introduction to "The Objectivist Forum", 1980) may be relevant here: «If you wonder why I am so particular about protecting the integrity of the term “Objectivism,” my reason is that “Objectivism” is the name I have given to my philosophy - therefore, anyone using that name for some philosophical hodgepodge of his own, without my knowledge or consent, is guilty of the fraudulent presumption of trying to put thoughts into my brain (or of trying to pass his thinking off as mine - an attempt which fails, for obvious reasons). […] If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with - and then indulge any flights of fancy you wish, on your own.»

Nicely done, Craig. Your most incisive points were the statements that it doesn’t matter whether Ayn Rand was right or whether she covered everything. It only matters what she said. That is hers. That is a Objectivism. End of subject. Closed. Thanks.