Truth and Toleration Series - Part 1

Watch the first of this two-part Facebook Live webinar series: Truth & Toleration: An Intro to Objectivism (Part 1).

Elizabeth Hayes of Students for Liberty (SFL) interviews David Kelley, Founder and Chief Intellectual Officer of The Atlas Society (TAS), on the history of the Objectivist movement.

Be sure to join us for the second of the two-part series on Truth & Toleration: Objectivism & Current Affairs (Part 2), will air live on SFL's official Facebook page, to include discussion and viewer questions on Thursday, December 7th beginning at 2pm ET.

[lawrencemiller]

Their videos on socially transmitted diseases are great, PSA's.

[lawrencemiller]

Ayn Rand supported the individual, but was not pro-life, and supported abortion. She stated she did not vote in 1980 because Reagan opposed abortion. ... How can support for abortion be reconciled with supporting individuals when the fetus in the womb is an individual, has a heartbeat, is separate from the woman and dependent on the woman? This leads to the conclusion that either infanticide is ethical for there is not so much difference just after birth, or abortion is unethical and further irresponsible sexual intercourse is unethical. ... Seems the life of the woman is important such that if a disease seems to mean either the woman or fetus dies, then the ethical choice is for the woman to live. ... In keeping with part of Ayn Rand's ethics, seems all forced government funding of abortion should be eliminated, including and not limited to eliminating government funding of Planned Parenthood.

[jerseyanusa]

This is pretty good!
By analogy, I suppose, Objectivism is like the carrying of water from a well. You might have different kinds of bucket materials, or handles, or sizes, depending on the distance or amount of water, or how modern a bucket you can afford.
"Do you have an open or closed or innovative strategy?"
David Kelley makes for a good interview, and Elizabeth Hayes a good interviewer.

[zracer]

If you say that Einstein's theory of relativity is open to evolution, that means that you start with Einstein's theory of relativity, and then make modifications, and wind up with something DIFFERENT than Einstein's theory of relativity. You may, after that process of CHANGE, have David Kelley's theory of relativity. You cannot logically START with Einstein's theory of relativity, then CHANGE it's identity, and still have Einstein's theory of relativity AFTER the process of CHANGE.

The same is true of Objectivism. Objectivism is the philosophic system which AYN RAND originated, and integrated. It is HER work. It is HER property. It IS what SHE said it is. Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand gave to HER set of ideas. Objectivism IS the philosophy of AYN RAND.

To say that we should have "open Objectivism, " is a blatant attack at the fact that the philosophy, the ideas which it contains, and the name that Ayn Rand gave the structure, exists as it exists, that it exists, and is the product of AYN RAND's effort. It's an attack on objectivity as such; that things don't have to be what they are, that they can be anything anyone wants them to be. David's crusade to open, and therefore corrupt the structure which Ayn Rand developed is nothing more than a hideous attempt to inject HIS Subjectivism into it's structure.

Nobody is saying that ideas shouldn't be criticized, or further developed. David, or anyone else, is free to develop his or her own own philosophic structure, SEPARATE from, and possibly even INSPIRED by the ideas contained in Ayn Rand's Objectivism. They are NOT, however, free to develop their own structure, and then attempt to pass it off as, or smuggle it into, Objectivism. There is no "Open vs. Closed nature of Objectivism." There is Objectivism over /*here*, and then there is David Kelley's tirade to try to change what it IS over /*there, * totally SEPARATE from what Objectivism actually IS.

This guy will never accept that FACT, and neither he nor ANYONE else, no matter how valid their ideas, can possibly contribute anything to IT. Objectivism is Objectivism. It is what it is. A is A. It belongs to Ayn Rand, and it exists as SHE created it.

Any attempt to identify one's own development as Objectivism is DISHONEST, and FRAUDULENT.