Discussion and evaluation of two schisms that recently have been the subject of much discussion: one within the GOP and another within the Objectivist movement. More stories as well, see Program Notes, below, for all the stories, etc., I plan to discuss.
Join in live, either by phone or in the chat room at BlogTalk Radio!
The show can be accessed here.
To access the show’s page at BlogTalk Radio, which will allow you to check out a past episode or to subscribe via iTunes and other services, use this link.
To access the iTunes store page for “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard,” where you can find past episodes, subscribe, and leave ratings and reviews (pretty please!), use this link.
Finally, if you would like to support the show financially, please donate using your Pay Pal account or Credit Card here.
How a secret Freedom Caucus pact brought down Obamacare repeal
Those Freedom Caucus ‘Purists’ You’re Bashing? New Study Suggests They Actually Saved the GOP HT Rob Abiera
Repeal of Affordable Care Act Is Back on Agenda, Republicans Say
Freedom Caucus divided on tool to force Obamacare repeal vote
Hey, Brother, can you spare a retweet?
At the very least, if the #GOP fails to repeal #Obamacare, they should make members of Congress subject to it.
— Amy Peikoff (@AmyPeikoff) March 28, 2017
Witness (BBC) episode on Ayn Rand
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
Sarrah Le Marquand: It should be illegal to be a stay-at-home mum HT Daniel Henry
Ayn Rand’s “objectivist” philosophy is now required reading for British teens HT Rob Abiera
Low Dose Naltrexone HT Aurora LePort
2 responses to ““If the Schism Fits, Wear It,” TODAY at 3 p.m. ET (12 p.m. PT)”
I don’t think it is proper to call Objectivism either open or closed. Neither term encapsulates the nature of the system.
Open refers to the system being readily available to change as in some people who allege that anarchism is consistent with Objectivism’s more basic ideas.
Closed implies a dogmatic view not just a fixed view which is what Leonard is getting at. Objectivism is a fixed set of ideas that follow from Ayn Rand.
However her ideas are such that you are not allowed to hold an idea that you know to be false. If you apply that to Objectivism and you do discover something that contradicts the philosophy you are required by the philosophy to abandon the philosophy. In this way it works either to drive people out of the philosophy or to be consistent with it in terms of fundamentals. As such I think a better term to encapsulates how the philosophy functions is to refer to it as an active system. In the same sense as in an active mind as opposed to closed or open.
Agreed neither open nor closed. The conceptual framework of deciding open and close is just wrong.
Is newtons laws open or closed? They describe truths about the world.
Is eignsteins generalization of Newton’s law of gravity expanding the domain of Newtonian physics?
No and no.
Ayn Rand’s theory of phylosophy is neither open nor closed, they are systematic formulations of general truths (like physical/mathematical laws, but in the domain of more fundamental ideas) and she coined the term Objectivism to label her systematic theory.
I believe members of the open movement are attempting to steel a value. The value they are steeling is the credibility that Ayn Rand created in her ideas; they want credibility for their ideas without earning it. If they were honest they would simply coin their “expansion” of objectivism as “Henry’s or Susie’s theory of Objectivism/philosophy” (or something to that effect).
For the same reason no one will find errors with Newtonian physics within the context it was derived, no one will find errors with Objectivism. Both have been validated inductively.
Caught your show on podcast. Sorry I missed it live. I would have chimed in. Unfortunately I found your argument of “give the woman some respect because I would” as unconvincing.