An OAC Moment: Is Objectivism an Open or Closed System?

In this clip from the Objectivist Academic Center’s Year 1 seminar on Objectivism, Onkar Ghate discusses the question “Is Objectivism an open or closed system?” Ghate argues that there are three important distinctions about the nature of philosophy—in relation to the characterization of Objectivism as an open or closed system—that must be considered to answer the question.

Subscribe to ARI’s YouTube channel to make sure you never miss a video:
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:

******

******

[saharbenbaruch]

It actually answers some of my questions about the different organizations. Thank you very much about the clarification. Thank you Onkar as ever.

[TheHawkeReborn]

I did make a subconscious integration between Objectivism and Philosophy, and regarded them as the same thing. This clarifies a lot for me, thank you.

[johnoz]

This is the reason I only dedicate my philosophical attention at ARI when dealing with Ayn Rand's ideas. You guys say it as it is. Atlas Society try to make it "acceptable" or "tolerable". Still claiming they promote Ayn Rand, when treating her thoughts as though it's debatable, in the philosophy she created.

[georgestacey]

I was wondering about this, it is great to know your view and I couldn't agree more with the reasoning behind it.
This is one of my favorite channels on youtube, I have a lot of respect for the people connect with it.

[---tfoe]

Its incredible that we still need to clarify this

[diegomorales]

Calling objectivism a "distinct, finished product" doesn't somehow imply that no new truths can be discovered. Most critics like David Kelley don't get this.

[MysteriesFromBeyond-]

Objectivism is an ideology.


Philosophy seeks understanding of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It's open-ended and encourages critical thinking and questioning.


Ideology provides a set of beliefs or doctrines that often guide political, social, or economic systems. It aims to prescribe action and often has a more rigid structure.

The distinction between philosophy and Objectivism is not that one is open and the other is closed. It is that Objectivism is an ideology and not a philosophy as Rand claimed.

[SpacePatrollerLaser]

That was kicked around on Facebood when I was there in 2015-18. But I could never gtet a usable definition of "open" that wasn't likr a mass thin jelly; too viscous to swin in and to thin to hold any shape

It is clased
1. From Ayn Rahd in about the mid-60's "[Objectivism] ca not be added to or subtracted from". Also "We know all there is to know about philosophy"

2. While stadking on one foot:
METAPHYSICS: Objective Reality; that CLOSES it to subjectivism, whim-worship or any form of egocentrism
EPISTEMOLOGY: Reason; that CLOSES it to faith, innate ideas or any deterministic, externally controlled epistemology
ETHIC: Ratioanl Self-interest' THAT CLOSES it to sacrfice of self to others or others to self
POLITICS: Individual Rights; that CLOSES it to Fascism, Communism, Socialism or any from of statism

Everything is "closed". A is A. To be is to be SOMETHING, to be something is to NOT be everything else. To be a cat is to NOT be a dog, NOT be a bird, NOT be a truck, NOT be a rock Iand not to roll) To NOT be anything but a cat. How come do you think you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. That's why I could not get anything but a very wobbly - and DODGY answer when I asked what "open" meant. They didn't know themselves so they had to compromise between something tenable and some kind of liquid that flows away when you try to get some. So they ended up with some "gray goo" that was neither

Now, it can be "open" in another sense. It can consist of whatever Objectivity and Reason will yield. In that sense, Objectivism is ORTHOPRACTIC rather than ORTHODOCTIC, Most of the "contents" are geared to be a "how to" rather than "what to believe"
This is why I reject the question "Is capitalism moral"
If objectivity is correct and if reason is correct. then rational self-interest is correct
If rational self-interest is correct then individual rights is correct
If individual rights is correct, then when you add economics, then all you can get is capitalism BY NECESSITY. A thing cannot be both necessary and open to moral judgement, because if it follows by necessity; i.e. automatically, it is not open to choice. It cannot be both correct and incorrect on principle. It is not that capitlaism is moral or immoral, it is that the issue is settle further up the chain of deriviatives with Metaphysicis (objectivity) and Epistimology (reason) being where philosophy interfaces with man (in the form of worldview and mindset) and the world (what works to get the job of survival done), with the rest just falling into place, unless you are either ignorant, or if not that, torturing the process

[MultiFortunatus]

Is there an easy term for ideas that are based on or compatible with Objectivism?
Like The DIM Hypothesis or The Evidence of the Senses.

[stevenhsu]

What seems to be strange and confusing to me is when he says that Ayn Rand's philosophical theory, which she called Objectivism, was closed when she died, but "philosophy, " as a branch of knowledge to which Objectivism belongs, is open. My question, then, is: whether Objectivism IS a theory of philosophy or not? If it is, then it should be treated as an open system, because, as he says in the video, philosophy pertains to finding out what is true. And whether a specific theory of philosophy (in this case it's Objectivism) is true or not should be open to discussion and debate. Otherwise, it seems to me that he and other objectivists from ARI are saying (1) that Objectivism and philosophy are somehow related but are fundamentally different, they should, therefore, be treated differently, and (2) that while "philosophy" is open to discussion and debate, Objectivism, as a systematic theory of philosophy, is not, because Ayn Rand's Objectivism is COMPLETE, HOLISTIC, AND PERFECT; in other words, it is the TRUTH. In regard to the latter, though I might be wrong, I highly doubt it to be the case. Overall, I think the arguments he's making are casuistic.

[pavlova]

Okay, given Onkar's comments at the end, can we say that ARI and TAS disagree on this issue except for the semantics? To figure out who I sympathise with more, I want to understand how this semantic disagreement has lead to the use or misuse of Objectivism by the organisations. E.g. preaching to the choir, sanctioning libertarians, etc. But I do admit that if this video has always represented ARI's perspective, it does seem uncalled for to redefine Objectivism or find any fault with this definition.

[SpacePatrollerLaser]

To say that it was complete when Rand died may be incorrect, To the bes my knowledge, all we have for the Theory of Knowledge, is the INTRODUCTION to Objectivist epistemology; and that was rather long, not a full work, so it is obviously not complete. Would you say that Aristotle's philosophy was complete when he died? Yet it has branched off into other specific philosophies like Thomism and Objectivism? If it is completed then what is the point of having philosophersat ARI?. There may be internal work to be done. I signed on in '68, more formally, when In ;72, in ERGO I read the Objectivist Manifesto from the old NBI (the only problem I had with that was that one of the "measures" was cast in the negative; that should be fixed). I would like to have an ecopy of that to work on (re-write the negative to a positive statement) My latch onto that was based on several of the articles in THE VIRUTE OF SELFISHNESS, CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL and THE ROMANTIC MANIFESTO. I would need ecopies of everything I had plus OPAR since I can no longer read standar print. To integrate the Manifesto with OPAR. I have an MA in Psychology, the equivalent of a minor (20 credits?) in Western Civ (Providence Colleg) and some 16 credits in philosophy and philosophy-related (Providence College Religious Studies and History and Philosophy of Science at both Bristol Community College and Providence College). P.C.is run by the Dominicans and has or had when I was there, a Thomist; i.e. Aristotelian Philosophy Dept. The Manifesto and OPAR should be integrated to ensure a smooth historical timeline

[frederickfarias]

What a great analogy between Darwin's Evolution, and Ayn Rand's Objectivism. A modern Gail Wynand would get the book out of the car instead of Spencer, it would be Peterson.

[ashtonbarwick]

Objectivism will either stay a niche segment of libertarianism or be the catalyst for a rebirth of the enlightenment depending on how we answer this question.

[wittietube]

I like to refer to these "others" as "Pajama Objectivists, " from the Frank Zappa song "Pajama People." Probably they shouldn't be referred to as Objectivists of any kind but it's hard to resist: "After Market Objectivists?" "Knock-Off Objectivists?"

[MysteriesFromBeyond-]

But what if a scientist discovers a chemical reaction that is both self-sustaining and self-generating, but isn't alive? Objectivism closes like a clam to evade the very idea of such a thing.

[Heraclitean]

Read David Kelly's writings on the topic and decide for yourself. You'll have to find them on your own though. As paragons of scholarly integrity those who posted this video didn't deign to provide a link.

[ExistenceUniversity]

Doesn't reality close it? Such that open means open to change when we want, closed meaning reality is as it is, end of story

[Feuerbringers-Lair]

Darwin's contributions to the theory of evolution ended with his death. Never would he have claimed that only what he wrote or discovered was "the theory of evolution by natural selection". Sure, there is a definition of the theory and not every claim is compatible with it. Crux of the matter: A scientific theory can be proven wrong. Can Objectivism be proven wrong? Or is it "closed" to attempts to disprove it?

[bleebove]

Totally disagree, but thanks for clarifying your position. Definitely subscribing to the Atlas Society you tube page now. You might desire to ‘own’ the name but what it represents existed already before and now after the death of AR. I advocate embracing the philosophy but not obsessing over who named it but rather - now knowing what we know - how to effect change so we might live it.