The Atlas Society Forums

Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

12-14-2005, 11:31 AM Andy_X69 Joined on 12-15-2005 Posts 75 Greetings All Hello, I guess I will make the introduction somewhat brief. My name is Andrew, and I am a Neo-Objectivist (I tend to use that term because I like to differentiate myself from the dogmatist cult that calls itself 'Objectivist' (and we all know who I am referring to here)) from Australia. I am currently studying economics (although I do philosophy subjects because I enjoy arguing with the Professoriat) at the University of Queensland. I will be on these forums quite a bit, given I am very fond of the work being done by the TOC/Heterodox/Open-System Objectivists. I think that this work is absolutely vital to the future of Objectivism as a philosophy. I also believe I have some contributions to make in both the advancement of theory as well as promotion of the philosophy. Delighted to be here, -Andrew    Report

12-14-2005, 1:23 PM Erik C. Christensen Joined on 12-08-2005 Posts 13 Re: Greetings All Welcome Andrew! I read your other post and found it very enlightening and thought out.    Report

12-14-2005, 1:36 PM Andy_X69 Joined on 12-15-2005 Posts 75 Re: Greetings All Thankyou very much Erik. I'm glad to hear you enjoyed my post.    Report

01-16-2006, 8:43 AM objectivist Joined on 01-16-2006 Posts 3 Re: Greetings All Hi Erik, I'm interested to know what you mean by Neo-Objectivism and open systems Objectivism.  I'm in South Africa, by the way. Regards, Steve      Report

01-16-2006, 8:45 AM objectivist Joined on 01-16-2006 Posts 3 Re: Greetings All Sorry, I meant Andrew, not Erik.   Steve    Report

01-18-2006, 1:46 AM Andy_X69 Joined on 12-15-2005 Posts 75 Re: Greetings All Steve, "Objectivism vs. Neo-Objectivism" is a somewhat touchy issue. Let me explain it this way: Objectivists come in two varieties: Closed System (aka. Orthodox Objectivists, Randroids, Ayndroids, Acolytes Of Pope Lenny The First, etc) and Open System (aka. Kellyites, Neo-Objectivists, Post-Objectivists, "Reality-Before-Rand" Objectivists, etc). The two factions basically spend their time denouncing eachother as perverters of Objectivism, irrationalists and moral cannibals. However, the Orthodox Objectivists actually ARE perverters of Objectivism because they treat it like a religion. The Open-System Objectivists are truer to actual Objectivism, at the cost of disagreeing with some of Ayn Rand's applications of the philosophy (yes, she occasionally made mistakes, showed obscene ignorance at times, and some would say evaded). The Objectivist Center are Open-System Objectivists (the think tank itself was a product of David Kelley's excommunication from Lenny's Cult, for the 'crimes' of declaring Objectivism an open system of ideas and speaking to non-Objectivist Libertarians). Most members of it call themselves Objectivists, although I use the term Neo-Objectivist because use of "Objectivist" often leads to conflation with "Randroid" (i.e. member of Lenny's Cult). In short, in my first post I used "Objectivist" to refer to Closed System Objectivism (although wether it is actually Objectivism is up for debate... Id say its fundamentalism based on "Atlas-Shruggedical Inerrancy") and "Neo-Objectivist" to refer to Open System Objectivism (i.e. Objectivists that are actually objective, not irrationalists with an Atlas Shrugged fetish).    Report

01-27-2006, 9:41 PM McCarthy Jr. Joined on 01-27-2006 san antonio,tx Posts 6 Re: Greetings All Is it true that Open-System Objectivists try to promote agnosticism? "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" --Barry Goldwater, 1964    Report

02-13-2006, 12:09 AM Andy_X69 Joined on 12-15-2005 Posts 75 Re: Greetings All Some would be considered agnostic rather than atheist, but even orthodox Objectivism's argument for atheism makes heavy use of arguments that are compatible with agnosticism as well. For example, if you cannot prove the existence of god (as religions say so), then there is no reason to believe in god. This argument works for both positions. Indeed, its probably fair to say that Objectivism would support a form of atheism called "Agnostic Atheism" meaning: "If we cannot know that god exists or not, then god simply cannot exist." Strictly speaking however, no Neo-Objectivist would argue for the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, infinite deity. What about a 'non-matter based consciousness' that is finite? Well, that concept does not violate any axioms so technically its possible, but that does not mean we should assume such beings exist.    Report

04-01-2006, 10:32 AM tqk Joined on 04-01-2006 Calgary, AB, Canada Posts 5 Re: Greetings All  Andy_X69 wrote: "Objectivism vs. Neo-Objectivism" is a somewhat touchy issue. Let me explain it this way: Objectivists come in two varieties: Closed System (aka. Orthodox Objectivists, Randroids, Ayndroids, Acolytes Of Pope Lenny The First, etc) and Open System (aka. Kellyites, Neo-Objectivists, Post-Objectivists, "Reality-Before-Rand" Objectivists, etc). Thank you for the explanation, though (of course) I intend to reserve judgement until I've learned more on the subject.  For someone looking on from afar, the divisions don't speak well of the participants. I've been involved, more or less, with Objectivism going on thirty years now but have until recently remained pretty much outside the mainstream.  The bickering and schisms I've seen between the various factions up to now are just plain depressing.  I expect Objectivists to be above such things; there are much bigger problems to be dealt with. I hope that some of the more positive trends I'm seeing lately are symptoms of the movement's having matured and grown beyond its adolescent beginnings.  Perhaps now, it's mature enough to start making a difference.  I'd welcome such a development. One thing, however.  I doubt name calling ("Acolytes Of Pope Lenny The First") becomes anyone.  I realize at times it's been painful for some, but let's just get on with the job, shall we?  See you on the front lines.  :-) Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) - -    Report

04-07-2006, 12:44 PM mikelanyard Joined on 04-07-2006 Posts 8 Re: Greetings All "Non-matter based consciousness?"  I'm afraid that certainly does violate not only logic, but Objectivism as well (understatement). This idea was succinctly addressed (and destroyed) early in Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged (p.942, Signet paperback edition): "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms.  A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.  If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness."  This issue is directly addressed by Nathaniel Branden in more detail in an article in The Objectivist Newsletter (I do not have the copy at hand, but I will provide the reference later to anyone who so desires) and at length in Lecture 4, "The Concept of God," in his Basic Principles of Objectivism (available on CD from TOC). That lecture is a tour de force on issues related to the existence of God, atheism, agnosticism (even worse, epistemologically), and Objectivism. Probably one of the best lectures he ever gave. Listen, and judge for yourself. Want more from an Objectivist (or neo-objectivist) perspective?  See George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God. (Buffalo,NY: Prometheus, 1979). 350 pages developing and expanding on Rand's and Branden's arguments (and giving them credit). .    Report

04-18-2006, 3:14 AM Andy_X69 Joined on 12-15-2005 Posts 75 Re: Greetings All Mikelaynard, Non-matter based consciousness does not, under any circumstances, violate the fact that no existant can come before existence. Now, may I add, I am not attempting to defend the Abrahamic concept of 'God,' rather I am saying that the concept of a conscious entity composed out of something other than matter does not violate any axioms whatsoever. This does NOT mean that any possible theoretical entities exist, it simply means that these theoretical entities COULD exist. Its a fact that matter and energy are interchangeable. Antimatter has also been produced. Hence, an EXISTENT can be composed out of matter or antimatter, as a theoretical possibility. And possibly energy, as well. This is certainly, IN NO WAY, saying that a consciousness can exist before existence. It cannot, and no Neo-Objectivist would advocate the concept of the Judeao-Christian god.      Report

04-19-2006, 1:23 AM mikelanyard Joined on 04-07-2006 Posts 8 Re: Greetings All  "rather I am saying that the concept of a conscious entity composed out of something other than matter does not violate any axioms whatsoever." Really?  Which axioms does it not violate? Exactly what is this conscious entity composed of - if not matter? You may say "antimatter" or "energy," but you offer no examples or evidence of a "non-matter" consciousness based on either of these. You need to define your terms. And, of course, check your premises. Using the word "theoretically," does not allow one to throw out, logic, reason and evidence. What theory - and what method is to be used to validate that theory?. One could make the statement that Fairies (or goblins or demons) may "theoretically" exist, but such a statement is epistemologically meaningless. Such incorporeal beings (including gods) cannot be validated or demonstrated. Throwing in extraneous terms from physics, such as antimatter or energy, does not save one from demonstrating how these concepts validate a non-matter based consciousness. A non-matter based conscious does not only defy reason, logic, and science - it throws out these methods entirely and replaces them with wishful fantasy. See the books I cited earlier for an extended discussion of this issue.    Report

04-19-2006, 12:10 PM Andy_X69 Joined on 12-15-2005 Posts 75 Re: Greetings All "Exactly what is this conscious entity composed of - if not matter? You may say "antimatter" or "energy," but you offer no examples or evidence of a "non-matter" consciousness based on either of these." My purpose was NOT to prove that any such actually exist. My purpose was to show that the advocacy of the existence of such entities, WHICH I AM NOT ACTUALLY DOING, does not ential the advocate is inherently irrational or immoral. Antimatter and energy are existants. They exist. They are finite, defined THINGS. Hence, to say that: 1) speculating on the existence of non-matter based consciousness for more then ten seconds without rejecting the notion as logically impossible or 2) advocating the existence of such theoretical beings (which is not what I am actually doing!) is IDENTICAL TO THE ADVOCACY OF PRIMACY-OF-CONSCIOUSNESS METAPHYSICS is a non-sequitur. Now, it is correct that no one can, and certainly no Open-System Objectivist would, advocate the existence of such beings without empirical evidence. However, some people have experienced what they consider to be empirical proof (sensory proof) of what some would refer to as the paranormal. To say that everyone that claims this experience is immoral-irrational-insane is stupid. I am NOT one of these Neo-Objectivists, but some embrace modified forms of paganism or some form of Buddhist spirituality. I refuse to say these people are evil. They may have a few false premises, but there is no inherent evasion. They may have interpreted some abnormal empirical experiences in an incorrect manner. They may have empirical experience of a very strange (but still existant and objective) phenomenon. I would not believe them, given I have no experiences of the 'paranormal' but I certainly would not automatically declare them evil mystics and excommunicate them from my circle. Maybe you should ask those people themselves of how they arrived at their conclusions. THEN you may morally judge them.      Report

05-10-2006, 2:39 PM Ronald Joined on 04-05-2006 Posts 5 Re: Greetings All Well spoken Ange...anyway, I hope to read something that you contribute to her theory of truth. How to promote? ....Certain questions must be asked, and answered; Why is she so offensive to people? For one thing, she denounced peoples beliefs. She could have found a way around that; but she wasn't interested in communicating. She figured, 'let the intellect lead the way.' She didn't care if people understood her or not. She knew herself. She didn't need validation. That's one question that can be examined; and it leads to many  places. Another topic to be touched is the way she preached capitalism. VOLUMES, she had to say on these things, which I do see the logic in it all, but other issues of her doctrine needs to be abbreviated and emphasized on, before such topics as Capitalism can be tackled. Isn't it funny, or perhaps strange that this woman just brushed past, almost without notice, her greatest discovery? Her discovery of concepts, which leads the student directly to the issue of LANGUAUGE. Every wrong in history can be directly linked to our incomplete concept system. Does ANYONE? know what I am talking about?    Report

The Atlas... » Special Interes... » Meet Members » Greetings All

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Ayn Rand's Ideas |- General Discussion Ayn Rand's Novels |- Atlas Shrugged |- The Fountainhead |- We The Living |- Anthem |- Short Stories and Plays Ayn Rand's Films |- We The Living |- The Fountainhead |- Love Letters |- You Came Along |- Atlas Shrugged Special Interest |- Meet Members |- My Favorite Rand Character |- My Favorite Rand Passage |- If You Like Rand, You'll Like... Summer Seminars |- Summer Seminar 2007 |- Summer Seminar 2008 University Place and PSU