David Kelley - What is Open Objectivism?

Speaker 0 00:00:00 The topic is open objectiveism. Uh, and let me just say a note of background. Um, this was a term, uh, concept, uh, uh, a view that I developed, um, over 30 years ago. And, um, this approach to, uh, to objectiveism as a philosophy is something that's been part of our, um, policy as an organization ever since. It's. I think it's fair to say it's something like the DNA of our organization. It's so deep. Um, I wanna say a few words by, um, action, and, but probably as more questions as possible, because I know many people on the call are familiar with this, uh, this idea and the distinction between open objectiveism, our view and the CLO view of objective as a closed philosophy. Um, so first of all, I wanna make a, a, an important point that is not always well understood. The idea of open objectiveism is not about the content of the philosophy. Speaker 0 00:01:19 The philosophy is objectiveism period. Um, what, what objectiveism, what open objectiveism means it has to do with the nature of the philosophy as a body of knowledge. And, uh, essentially I've explained in others have pointed out many times. It it's that the, uh, the philosophy is a body of knowledge. And like anybody of knowledge is open to expansion revision if necessary, um, exploration and further discovery. Uh, this is by contrast with the close to you. So, you know, an important principle, one conceptual understanding is you understand a concept you had to understand its opposite. So lemme just say a few words about what the close philosophy is. This was a view originally put forward by Leonard Poff in an article that was, uh, criti critical of a short piece. I wrote, um, in 1989, um, the close fuel of objectiveism is that it, and it, this is a, a view about philosophy in general, uh, a philosophical system like objectiveism by nature is a totality of a body of logically integrated principles that cover every issue in philosophy. Speaker 0 00:02:49 That's the idea of a system of philosophy rather than single individual philosophical thesis, Leonard PECO. Um, in that article I mentioned said, and this is a quote, the essence of the system, its fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch of philosophy is laid down once and for all by the author, uh, by the philosophers author, which is obviously on ran. So as I am understand this, it involves two claims. Um, first of all, because it covers all issues objectiveism is complete. There are no gaps in the philosophy, no issue left on, on addressed or without a, uh, philosophical view on that issue it's complete. And the second one is that because it's integrated, no element can be changed without altering the entire system. Any change would ripple through the system and, uh, change the meaning of everything else or the confirmation of it or whatever. Speaker 0 00:04:05 Um, which means it has a fixed identity. It is fixed and common view. Um, the letter, uh, defended in that, um, uh, at that at time was the fixed identity includes all and everything that I ran, uh, on philosophy wrote or approve, um, Ian philosophy, she's said a lot of stuff about political events. Um, she made a express, a lot of her views about specific works of art. These, these are not necessarily part of the, um, the, uh, totality of objectiveism their applications, but everything in Phil, uh, all over philosophical views down to ethics, politics, uh, details and ethics, politics, aesthetics, as well as metaphysics and epistemology. This is all objectiveism is all, but only that. Speaker 0 00:05:13 Um, so in that respect, he's saying that philosophy is not like science, um, and the rationale, I think, as I analyzed it, um, trying to understand his essay is that the pH philosophy, unlike science is based on observations that, um, are available to people in any age. So it's not subject to further scientific discoveries or any other kind of discovery over time. So that's the closed view, the open view, um, is that, uh, first of all, it's not complete, I don't think that objectiveism ran lefted does cover every single issue. Um, objective as philosophers are, are pretty much across the board are constantly working on new issues, new aspects of existing issues, um, on our side of the fence, um, there are some additions that I think have stood the test of time. Uh, I wrote a book in, uh, on benevolence and I believe making the argument of that benevolence is the key. Speaker 0 00:06:33 Um, objective is virtue. That was not part of brands and visual ethics. Um, although I think it's very consistent with, um, most of what she wrote, uh, she herself in epistomology, she herself said that, um, the problem of induction was not one that she had put solved or provided a, um, detailed theory on or inadequate philosophical theory on. And, um, uh, 12 years ago in, in 2010 Leonard peak off and David Herman published a book called the logical leap, which was providing, trying to fill that gap. So they themselves were, um, uh, adding to the philosophy, uh, among other issues I could mention, uh, ran, had very little to say about families and the ethics of families, which, uh, are hugely important in a lot of people's lives. Um, and I could go on, but those are some examples of, of areas that were not covered and that can be covered. Speaker 0 00:07:41 Um, so that's, that's a response to the idea objectiveism is, is, uh, is fixed and complete. If it's not fixed, then how do we iden, how do we define objectiveism the case I made? Um, it does objectiveism does have an identity it's different from other philosophical systems and viewpoints, but how well I made the case set that any philosophy and including objectiveism has to be identified by core principles, the essential principles that make up the skeleton of the whole system of ideas, um, that everything else hangs on and relates to, but those core principles, um, are leave open a lot of room for discussion analysis and, um, and expansion too. So in the book that I wrote on response to, uh, PE golf's article, um, called truth and toleration, which is now in our, I guess, a third edition, now that we've recently, um, published within the last few years, um, in that, um, chapter five, for those of you who are familiar with it, I, I took on the, the, the task. Speaker 0 00:09:11 I'm trying to define what those core principles are. Um, I consider that's a, that's a, a very scholarly task. I mean, you have to think hard about what it is that's really distinctive about. Objectiveism, what's essential to it and what essentially differentiates it from other philosophies, whether Platonism or existentialism or whatever. Um, I, I should add here that I considered that even at the time I was writing it, I considered this task part of an open approach and I was subject to revision as needed. Um, to my knowledge, almost knowing I don't really know of any substantial, uh, critique of, of my analysis. Um, but actually be I'd love to see it cuz I'm, I can well have left stuff out. Um, so one reason that I'm taking this, um, because this is such an old issue and so much has been written. Um, the reason I'm I'm I thought it might be a good idea to revisit it for this clubhouse. Speaker 0 00:10:34 Uh, really twofold. One is, uh, we have a lot of younger people, newer people don't have that 30 year background that, uh, um, some of us have and, um, are just getting, um, introduced to the objective to the philosophy of objectiveism, which is great. So this is important and it's important for an understanding what, how the out with society functions. Uh, also, um, recently we've been the last year and a half we've added, uh, no of scholars, um, who are, um, senior scholars, senior fellows who are, have their own background and objectiveism, and, and, um, are we often discuss and debate the issues. So I think we're all on board about the idea of an objectiveism, but, um, we also illustrate what, one of the features of open objectiveism, which is that our debate that can be, um, debates over many issues, uh, among, um, national people. Speaker 0 00:11:40 And finally, another reason is now less plus spring, the unre Institute, um, which had been the, you know, the exponent of the closed view came out with a, a long article in which it seemed to seed a number of points to, uh, that we've been arguing for many, many years. Um, we have an art article on our website called a new era in objectiveism, um, which I recommend if you haven't seen it already. So that's, um, a brief introduction to the issue. Let me, I just wanna make one more point. Um, the origin of this dispute, um, 30 plus years ago, did not begin with the open versus closed issue. It began with my defense of intellectual tolerance, um, which arose out of, I was attacked by someone who said I should, should not have, should not have been speaking to a libertarian, um, group. Speaker 0 00:12:51 Um, as I, as I did. And I, my argument was, well, wait a minute. Um, <affirmative> intellectual toleration has a value in that debating with people who don't necessarily agree with us can teach us something we can learn from this. Sometimes they, uh, as often like to say, critics critics are, can be useful predators, at least in picking off your weak arguments and getting rid of them. Uh, and the, uh, even you end up without changing your mind, you, you typically end up with the better, deeper understanding of your position, but the whole, but I, in that context, I, I said, objectiveism is a course open. I always took that as obvious. I, I had no idea anyone would, uh, disagree with that. Um, but, but objectiveism was, I mean, tolerance rather was a way of expanding our knowledge. It was a means to the end of greater knowledge, keep your knowledge. Speaker 0 00:14:03 Um, and what I came to understand is that, um, if the philosophy is, is closed and fixed, then we don't really have anything to learn. Do we, so why be tolerant? And it just, I felt like that was an insight into both something about the movement that had been disturbing me. So anyhow, I still think that the goal of objectiveness thinkers is expansion revision as needed and further development, whether it comes from discussion with others or from internal reflection. But I also wanna say that the idea of toleration here has a, uh, or social aspect, as well as an intellectual one, it's a way of dealing with people. And I think it's a form of benevolence and that, that difference that that aspect is something that is a, a remaining difference kind of, I think, in the two camps and objectiveism, um, openness to discussion and debate is, uh, treating other people as intellectual, potentially intellectual partners in the discovery of truth, rather than enemies that we have to refute and, um, shut down completely and underlying, you know, I've over the years, I've, I've come to think that one difference among different schools or areas of objective thought is how you believe we fit with the world. Speaker 0 00:15:56 Uh, our objective is and isolated community, um, against the hostile world, culturally hostile, politically hostile world. Um, or are we part of a world participants in our marketplace of ideas where we could disagree vehemently in some cases and disagree on some, in some cases, uh, because there are ideas out there that are vicious and destructive if acting on it, but many, many are, um, uh, not at that extreme. So I, I, I felt that, um, the sense of alienation and isolation in the world, um, is something that has, has been a problem with objectiveism tolerance is not the only piece of it. It's really, the answer is, has more to do with benevolence in general. But, um, I I'll just end by saying, I happen to notice in for those of you who are, um, have the Ts 2022 calendar. Um, two days ago on Tuesday, there was a nice one from Eric, nice calendar, quote, a meme, uh, this one from Eric Hoffer that said mass movements can rise and spread without a belief in God, but never without a belief in a devil. And what did that ever hit me? Um, when I was thinking about objectiveism, I don't know if that was the point of, of choosing this JAG. Maybe you can speak to that, but, um, anyway, so that's, um, that's a brief introduction just on a couple of points, um, but I'd like to turn it over to discussion now. And, um, I, you know, at this point I think the consequ questions people have and further exploration is more important than anything I can say. So let me leave it there. Speaker 1 00:17:55 Thank you, David. Um, I also want encourage all of you who are in this room, please share the room on clubhouse. Um, you can also share it on Twitter or Facebook. Just use the share button down next to the comment button. Um, I'm seeing, uh, some, uh, questions being raised in the, in the comments. Uh, please raise your hand. We'll bring you on up and, uh, hope, uh, to have a productive conversation with, uh, David. So, Craig, uh, you were the first to raise your hand. Do you have a question for David? Just need to unmute yourself? You're that we'll Speaker 2 00:18:52 You, uh, David, in, in your book, you mentioned that your own book has said that, uh, Iran wanted to have the name objectiveism limited only to those things that she wrote. Uh, and anything beyond that would have to, it couldn't be called objectiveism, uh, sort of like, um, Harry bins Sanger's book, he, he says it's on an objectiveist basis, but he doesn't call it objectiveism is the, is that really the, uh, issue here? It's just a question of, what's going to be included in the name objectiveism and limiting it to what iron Rand rope, Speaker 0 00:19:41 Excuse me. That is one of the arguments that, uh, people have offered for the closed view and, um, with all due to respect to Rand, I, I, I don't think she can add, she can demand that she owns or has anything comparable to a copyright in the term objectiveism um, actually she doesn't that she can't, uh, <laugh> I won't go and do all the details, but I, I know for a fact that it can't that term can't cannot be copyright because it's in common use, but it's odd for, uh, her, her, uh, philosophy to, um, for pH provide a name, um, to create a philosophy and put it out in the world as a body of knowledge about reality. It's not an art of, it's not a work of fiction, objectiveism she every right to copyright down the shrug and, you know, she owns that and owned it anyway. Speaker 0 00:20:49 Um, and, and no one can add or surpr add anything to the rug or subtract anything from it and still claimed in it's rug, but objectiveism is a philosophy. And it's like, you know, evolutionary biology or, or you call it Darwinism. But even, even when you attach the name of Darwin to the theory of evolution, uh, it, it was a theory, um, in biology that was often the world, uh, it was taken up and explored, expanded and developed much, much more fully. And there's no. Um, so you, iron ran herself said you cannot copyright, uh, ideas, you can't copyright, uh, TRUS of reality. So, so, um, I, I would say this argument doesn't, doesn't wash, and I don't think it's a primary the most, I, I think that, um, maybe Iran, uh, uh, Brooklyn or others would say is out of a courtesy to Durant. We should keep determining it that way. But, um, you know, I, while she was alive, I probably would've respected debt courtesy, um, out of honor to her, but, you know, it's been a long time now itself. The philosophy's gonna live and not live. It needs a name. And if it, what better name than the one that, um, she gave it, and that we've all been using for decades now. Speaker 1 00:22:30 Right. Craig, I see you're unmuted. Speaker 4 00:22:32 So thank you. Yes. Um, many years ago I was on the staff at MIT for five years and every year I would go to the Ford hall forum to listen to I rant. And one year I raised my hand and ask a question that I think shed some alive, her answer, shed some light on this whole issue. I asked my background is mathematics. I have a BS in math from Stanford. I was on the math team for five years. So I knew about the foundations of mathematics, the early arguments about it, the Russell paradox S in completeness, thes and so on, and I've written a monograph about it. Anyway, the question I asked her was Ms. Rand, have you or any of your associates? And I was thinking here of a, got health done, any work on applying objective epi to the foundations of mathematics. I thought was a useful question. She leaned forward with a half on her face, looked directly at me and said, well, you know, I can't do everything Speaker 0 00:23:36 <laugh>. Speaker 4 00:23:39 And what this says is she knew that objectiveism was not complete. She knew there would be additional work. One. She seconded this in her introduction. Objective is to epistemology where she made it clear. It's only an introduction as David Kelly has pointed out objectiveism in his opinion, doesn't have a theory of propositions. Um, you know, we could discuss that some other time, but I wanted to add that historical incident. She knew it wasn't complete. That's the point. Speaker 0 00:24:12 Yeah, I think, uh, thank you, uh, Craig, um, that I hadn't heard that story before, but it certainly, um, that's there are other comments that she made, um, that indicated, um, at least in some moods or some context, uh, she recognized that there was, uh, more to do. And, and in fact, one of our scholars, uh, uh, not on our staff, but David Ross, a math applied math addition has done some work that we have. We want to get published, um, on the foundations of mathematics precisely. But, um, so I, I just, in the, in the course of thinking about all this and developing my own ideas, I, I went through every source I could find. And, and at one time, and, uh, uh, made a list of where she ran herself, seemed to be O open to an open view of expansion, uh, expansionary view of her philosophy and where she did not. Um, unfortunately I didn't know the, your story, so I'll add that. But, um, but I should say also that, um, I'd be glad to have brands making, uh, put this because I've learned so much, uh, across so many domains from her, but at the end of the day, it's not a question of what you, what she says or what she wanted. It's not an issue of a authority. It's really an issue of what the nature of a philosophy is. And that's an issue about reality and cognition. Speaker 4 00:25:54 So may I make two more quick points? Speaker 0 00:25:58 Sure, sure. Speaker 4 00:26:00 Uh, the first one is I wrote a monograph about objectives, epi som applied to the foundation of mathematics, and I call it the foundations of mathematics on an objectiveist basis. I think that's the right way to pay proper respect. And it avoids completely the question of open versus closed. Okay. Speaker 0 00:26:22 Uhhuh. Speaker 4 00:26:23 Well, the second point is there's a wonderful poem by Kipling called the disciple, which every time I read it, I think of Leonard Poff, it talks about the disciple will say, well, the master would've thought this, or would've said this and so on. And I, I encourage you to read the poem and think of Leonard Speaker 0 00:26:42 <laugh> all right. Um, I read a lot of Kipling, but I don't think I've read that one. Thank you. Um, great. Speaker 1 00:26:53 Um, we, uh, would love to get some more questions in from the audience. So please raise your hand. If you have a question or a comment and we bring you Lang unmute, you unmute Speaker 5 00:27:30 There I'm, uh, David, is there in any sense that philosophy can be isolated away from humanity? That is that it can be a fixed set of knowledge that stands independent of its human origins. Speaker 0 00:27:58 Uh, um, Speaker 5 00:27:59 Kind of a metas logical question. Speaker 0 00:28:03 Yeah. John, I'm not, I'm not exactly sure. I understand it. It felt well, Speaker 5 00:28:08 I, I asked the question because if you're gonna have a closed system, then you're isolating it from the Dyna dynamic aspect of humanity. You're removing it from one of my interests, which is, uh, evolutionary, uh, psychology or sociobiology. And, uh, um, if, if PLO, if you don't have a closed system, then you're isolating it away from the change of humanity. That appears to me is a continuous contribution and a change agent in philosophy. So any philosophy that you attempt to close is bound to wind up somehow in error because of a clash with the change in its environment. I E humanity. Speaker 0 00:29:11 Well, I would thank you, John. I, I would, uh, I would wanna distinguish, um, the, I mean, philosophy is a product of human beings and of their cognitive capacities and of the ability to abstract. So, um, there, I don't think there can be, you can close off cognition. In fact, everything in the entire objective is ophthalmology says that's a disaster context, keeps expanding discoveries are always possible across any domain of knowledge, whether, um, but of course, we're, that's a point about cognition. We keep discovering new things and some of them, um, will be relevant to, uh, at the level philosophical level, possibly to, um, one or another, um, tenant of objectiveism, whether the philosophy has to change with broader changes in the world. Um, well, yes. Um, unre itself made a point about the concept of the in indu man's the role of man's mind in production that before the industrial revolution, that that could not have been as clear as it is today and that many of the aspects of that, including individual rights and property rights and so forth, although they, you know, people had some glimpse of that, it was only the industrial revolution and the, you know, astounding productivity that was unleashed under capitalism that people could fully appreciate the role of a mind, um, in man's life. Speaker 0 00:30:56 Okay, well, so now the industrial revolution and the, of capitalism happened because people were thinking things that is, they were fundamentally based on cognitive insights, but once, once the changes happened in the world, then they became data for, um, a whole new way of life and that new way of life, like you say, um, you know, it calls for philosophical acknowledgement adjustment, maybe. Um, so I, I think I'm, I'm partly agreeing with you anyway. Um, does that make sense? Speaker 5 00:31:39 Yes. I mean, I maybe to refine it, um, I just see Rand as a mid 20th century empiricist who did not have the benefit of reading Edmondo Wilson or the subsequent thought in evolutionary psychology. And, um, I think that those would've been quick things, it would've changed her thinking on some subjects if they had been available to her. So objectiveism would be a different body of philosophy if Rand had been exposed to Edmond or Wilson. Speaker 0 00:32:18 Yeah. Well, without, um, you know, commenting on Wilson himself, uh, or in the other, uh, evolutionary, I think there's there, there certainly is an issue, uh, and it's a psychological and cognitive science issue about the extent to which humans have inborn, um, capacities that are the product of a pollution. I, I mean, there's no question that the mine in general evolves, um, but the specific, um, claims sometimes made, um, on the part of that, that question, the, the blank slate view, um, right herself, I don't know how much she knew about that. She tended to, to, um, uh, you know, claim that, that we have the capacity for reason we have the capacity for emotion. Um, but the content of our thoughts and feelings are all derived from perception. Uh, I think that that needs closer study and modification. Um, although I, I would, in the end of the day say, you know, all knowledge comes from receiving reality in one form or another. And, um, that we, we have free will, nothing is going to change that. Um, cuz that would contradict Speaker 5 00:33:44 Another aspect. Another thing I'd wanna add to the mix here is that the history of humanity and of human knowledge is one of improvement in the tools of perception, for example, the microscope and the telescope. And then from there, the electron microscope and so on, and then mathematics itself as a tool of exploration of reality. Um, those were, were things that ideas that were not available to Rand in pro pounding, developing objectiveism and, um, it's epistemology and uh, as since philosophies relate to human nature and how people behave and conduct themselves, that, that I think that's gotta come into the mix too, is how knowledge is acquire, how concepts are formed. Speaker 1 00:34:44 That's a really, that's a, that's a great point, John. Uh, we've got Richard, um, another senior scholar here at the Atlas society, professor Richard Salman, professor of political economy at duke. So, uh, Clark of you'll hold on for a second. Um, I'm gonna go to professor Salzman next. Speaker 8 00:35:03 Thank you, Jennifer. Uh, thank you for this, David. I wanna get back to the, the topic of the, uh, the day, a couple of points that might be helpful. Rand in her Mike Wallace interview in 1958 on TV, a couple of times in that interview, he referred to the Randy and philosophy and she re she really objected to that and said to him, I don't wanna call it that. Now think of this, she's thinking I don't want it to be soy generous, I suppose it would be called in philosophy or the suggestion of subjectivism. So same thing like with Marxism KASM and the idea that in, I think it was formally, I'm looking at the intro of the preface to the new, new intellectual, which is three years later, she says, uh, for this reason I call my philosophy objectiveism so that seemed to be the first public statement, her first saying, this is the name and Leonard has private stories about how they came to that name. Speaker 8 00:35:57 But I just wanted to mention that because if, if, uh, we're, if the closed system truly is, I'm not sure this is accurate, but suppose it was anything she ever said or wrote, then that would be more accurately called Randy. It would not objectiveism and, and this is what she was resisting. So, so I I've always found it odd that the closed system, uh, claiming to be the keeper of the flame, so to speak of object, uh, really tried to turn it into Randy, which he publicly rejected. So that's, that's the first thing. But the other thing is listen to these passages in the preface. She says, now this is the preface to the new intellectual, which was a bunch of excerpts of the speeches from the fiction. Now it had an introductory essay as well, but she describes this as follows. She says, this contains the main philosoph passages from my novels and presents the outline of a new philosophical system. Speaker 8 00:36:52 I think the word outlines interesting, then she says the full system is implicit in these excerpts, but it's fundamentals are indicated in the details of the books. That's very odd. Um, then I would later it says, um, she says, when I say that the, and she says something about, I will present this more fully in a future, treat us okay, that didn't happen. Um, then at the end of the preface, when I say that these excerpts are merely an outline, I don't mean to imply that my full system is still to be defined or discovered until I complete the presentation of my philosophy in a fully detailed form. This present book may be served as an outline or a program or a manifest manifesto. So I think one, I think that's interesting. Now, if we fast forward to 1976, this is 15 years later, PE O gives the philosophy of objectiveism course in New York city, 12 lectures that think it was, and at the time in the Iran letter, Ms. Speaker 8 00:37:49 Ran wrote until she's recommending the course until, or unless I write a comprehensive tutor to semi philosophy, Dr. Beko course is the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of objectiveism. The only one I know of my, to my knowledge, to be fully accurate. Now, fast forward to 1991. Now she's died in 1982 in the preface to P O's oar, the objectiveism and the philosophy of I Rand. He, he not only quotes that statement, but if you go to the internet and listen to the 76 course, it's prefaced by Leonard saying, um, I override the 76 course, uh, cuz of its logical defects and other things. And, uh, the core and my book is to be seen as superseding what I did in 76, right? I'm not using, I'm not saying this to, to criticize O par I think O pars been a wonderful achievement, but it doesn't quite fit the closed objectiveism approach. Speaker 8 00:38:54 I mean, the book itself is the first full, comprehensive presentation of, of her philosophy, which she had promised. But even he says at the end of the preface, uh, even though I'm the person next, I ran, who's most qualified to write this book. She's not responsible for any misstatements in it. And it can't be properly described as official objective doctrine. Objectiveism is the name of I Rand's philosophy as presented in the material she herself wrote or endorsed. So at the end of this one at the beginning of this wonderful book on objectiveism Leonard, who's quite an expert on it is basically saying it's not objectiveism or it's not official objectiveism and then lit and, and then defines objectiveism in quotes is the name of the philosophy as presented in the material she herself wrote or endorsed. I, I suppose that would include the controversy about what about unpublished work? Speaker 8 00:39:49 So after she died, Leonard and others brought out a bunch of unpublished work now, which she is that considered part of I Rand's philosophy cuz she didn't publish it. Um, so there's all sorts of problems there, but I, I, I wanna leave it. I do wanna leave it with a question, David, when this came out, when the book came out and this preface came out, this was only two years after you and he disagreed about this. Does that presentation of it, that characterization of it? Did it surprise you at the time? Did it make you think? Well, he's basically come around to my view that that it's it's every man for himself and the best argument wins and he's admitting that. And why, why aren't we all open objectives Speaker 0 00:40:33 Actually? Uh, thanks Richard. Uh, you know, I, I looked at all that stuff, uh, at the time I was writing and I've looked at it since I can't make a single consistent claim out of it, um, Uhhuh. Speaker 8 00:40:50 Okay. Speaker 0 00:40:51 But because there there's so many different emphasis, uh, different, um, different context for different statements. Like, you know, as I said, I've got three or four page document of, of everything I could find that indicated one way or the other, what Fran thought, but, um, and peak off and others too. But, um, when O park came out, I was not at all surprised actually because, uh, he, uh, after, after my conflict and after I raised the issue of open versus whether objectiveism is open or closed, I don't think anyone had discussed before. Um, Speaker 8 00:41:33 Mm-hmm <affirmative> yeah, many Speaker 0 00:41:36 People Leonard and others that Ari be became very, very careful. Uh, this is my take, this is not objectiveism, don't take it as objectiveism Uhhuh, uh, in any official or authorized sense. And, um, <affirmative>, uh, that's true of Harry ERs. Um, how we know book says the same thing. Um, and many others have many other works, um, have had similar provisos in them. And, um, I just kind of, I, I sort of made me feel, I have some responsibility for that, um, that all, for those provisos defensive as they, you know, that's self defense, uh, against, um, don't take me as an open objectiveness, you know, I'm Speaker 8 00:42:29 Yeah. Speaker 0 00:42:30 Object is what Rand said and I'm just, I'm trying to describe, um, only, only the piece of the elephant that I can see and feel. So, um, but I, but I have to say the whole idea of unauthorized or official doctrine is Speaker 8 00:42:48 Yeah. Speaker 0 00:42:49 So inimical, yeah. To the, to the idea of philosophy, to the idea of rationality in particular and independence and, and to the primacy of existence. I mean, to philosophy, the key question is whether philosophy is true or false, whether identifies facts of reality. Yeah. And you know, that's, that's an ongoing project. Um, ran, did an astounding genius level of discovery. Yeah. Um, but if she wanted it to, to be a, a living philosophy, if we wanted to be a living philosophy, not a dead philosophy, not a dead language like Latin, for which the, the literature in Latin is closed. No one, no one, I mean, people still use Latin, but there, the Latin literature is a closed system, closed flaws. Me. And you would, if, if that happened with objectiveism, I would just feel, um, I would give up if I thought that was the case for the objective. So I'd just give it up. Um, Speaker 8 00:44:04 Yeah. I think that, I think of the, I think of the analogy of a dead language. Why, why do languages become dead that out of use, uh, not applicable anymore if, if it was strictly, uh, closed objectiveism I suppose you could have an iron rain Institute and a phone number and anytime the media or anyone else called, they would just say, uh, read her books. I mean, a any interpretation, any additional books, any campus lecture, all be interpretive and they wouldn't be her. They would be someone interpreting her. Uh, well, I'll leave it. One more thing. I'll leave you with. I think it's very interesting that in the Iran lexicon, which Harry put out in, uh, 19 86, 4 years after she died and she knew about the project, he says in the preface, he brought this to her and said, I'm gonna go through all your stuff and excerpt things and create a amounts to a dictionary. Speaker 8 00:44:59 And she said, that's impossible. Then he convinced her of a couple of passages. Anyway, what's interesting is on page 3 45, I'm looking at a passage called objectivity. Now I picked this one because this is no small thing. It's the essence of the philosophy objectivity. It has one page of excerpts from various things. And, um, what's interesting about this is if you go to O par, there are 40 pages and an entire chapter called objectivity. Yeah. Now I think it's, I think it's a fantastic chapter. My point though, is how do you get 40 pages out of one? It's it's important that he did it. I'm glad there was a separate chapter on objectivity, but that alone tells us that here's a philosophy called objectiveism and in her own works. Harry could only come up with a page on objectivity and Leonard thankfully gave us 40 pages, uh, Tara Smith and her recent book on legal theory has a whole opening chapter on the meaning of objectivity before she talks about judicial review. And so there it, so good stuff was added. And I think mostly valid stuff was added to this very important concept. Isn't that yet another example of what needs to be done. And without, without adult, it's not an adulteration it's addition and amplification it's really important stuff, but she didn't do it. Speaker 0 00:46:28 Right. Speaker 8 00:46:28 I thoughts you maybe being too hard. Speaker 0 00:46:34 It, one of the, one of the puzzles, uh, about this conflict to, to me is that, um, in philosophy there's a, a broad distinction between, um, people or historians who are writing about the history of philosophy, um, Aristotle, lado, whatever, and they are trying to interpret what the philosopher said. Mm-hmm <affirmative>, and often, um, these arguments get very complex because, you know, the scholars, you know, uncover ambiguities or different possible ways of interpreting a given statement. And that's exactly what a lot of objective, um, scholars are doing with rent mm-hmm <affirmative>, that's what all these books, uh, uh, articles on rent's philosophy are. Yep. And, um, the other approach of philosophy is do I call the problem oriented one? Here's the philosophical problem? What's the best theory about it? What's the best solution I'm gonna solve this problem. I wanna put out a theory that explains, um, the answer to the questions and there's, these are two broad tendencies and, and fun, but they I'm sorry. I, I had another call coming Speaker 9 00:48:09 Still. Speaker 10 00:48:11 Yeah. You're a little faint though. Speaker 1 00:48:13 Just make sure you're close to the phone, David. Speaker 0 00:48:28 Hello? Speaker 1 00:48:30 Yep. Okay. You're back. Speaker 0 00:48:32 Okay. All right. Um, what I, uh, what I was saying is that, uh, a number of the things that, um, that, you know, Richard was pointing out, uh, the 40 page that Boff wrote on objectivity, um, and many more pages that others have written, um, are partly interpretation, but, um, the inevitably there's some expansion here. There's flushing out of details. Yeah. And, um, so this is why I, I don't think that I, the close lawsuit is never even been coherent to me as a position, because what is, unless, unless you just take brand's words, literally, I mean, the, the actual words on paper are yeah. Um, as the only and final meaning of activism, um, then in which case there's nothing to do, but read no teaching, no explanation, no nothing. Yep. Uh, which is, I don't think anyone believes. So anyway, um, Speaker 1 00:49:42 We've got about 10 more minutes, so, uh, and we've got three. Well, uh, I'm gonna dismiss this one cuz uh, three more questions. I'm not sure we'll be able to get to them, but, um, Clark, thanks for your patience. Do you have a question? Speaker 10 00:49:59 Yes. Um, it's not really very philosoph, but uh, let me just set it up by saying that I know that, um, when David Kelly was excommunicated over 30 years ago, uh, there was a lot of viciousness, uh, from Ari. Um, and I believe the same thing may have happened with, uh, with George reman. I mean, when you went to the website or even got their book catalog, suddenly the evidence of the census was, was somehow no longer there. So I guess what I'm getting at is, you know, has, is Ari still very hostile to, uh, the Atlas society and maybe even the objective standard. And I guess I'm, I'm asking this from someone who's not a big name in objectiveism by any means. I I'm just a, you know, on the ground foot soldier. And, and quite frankly, I have a lot of, I don't know, Facebook friends who are, you know, they may not work for Ari, but, but they're pretty closely adjacent to it. Speaker 10 00:51:02 And, and I sometimes wonder if they knew that I, you know, that I, uh, frequent clubhouses with the Atlas society, they may turn pretty hostile to me. So I guess, uh, could you speak to, to some of this, I mean, how do we go about our lives when, I mean, obviously I have people that, that I know that, that, you know, that are, I consider them an objective, even Joran Brook has done, you know, Leonard PECO, they've done great things, but then when I see how VI viciously they've treated people that they somehow don't any longer consider objective, I have a lot of trouble reconciling this. Speaker 0 00:51:43 Uh, well, I, yeah, I do too. <laugh> um, there's a level of animosity here that I think goes beyond a difference of a philosophical opinion and, um, uh, may maybe personal elements, um, involved too, but there's definitely animosity. I think it's somewhat declining. Um, since I've stepped back so far, maybe, um, the Jennifer and our, the chairman of our board, John, um, sorry, Jayla pair and others on our board have, have, uh, talked with many of the people at Ari. So, and as I mentioned, they, they had that, um, article in the, uh, that we responded that we responded to the new era and objectiveism, which they seem to admit a number of things that we were were saying. But, um, so I I'll leave it maybe to others, to who, who are closer to the ground, um, than I am currently to, uh, answer your question. I, I would just say one thing though, that, you know, in movements that have an authorized doctrine and, uh, any kind of authority, so like the articles of faith and Al's Catholicism or the party line in communism, um, the doctrine can ship over time, but the natural history here is that there's no redemption for those who shifted too soon before it was politically correct. And, um, I've seen that in objectiveism too. Um, so, um, it's an unfortunate psychological thing, um, or movement thing, but, um, it's not good. It's not good. Speaker 1 00:53:35 Brian, get to the wire here. Speaker 11 00:53:39 Thanks. I know we're in a hurry. Uh, hopefully my question is, uh, quick, quickly answered, uh, of the five, I guess, branches, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics, which area do you think stands to gain the most by keeping, uh, by using this open, uh, you know, approach? Speaker 0 00:54:01 Um, well, I would say I, I hadn't thought about that, but I, off the top of my head, I would say all of them, uh, ed there in every realm, there is, uh, there's room for, um, uh, further development. You know, the epistemology and metaphysics are more fundamental and, um, that has, that means on the one hand they're more important. So if they're, uh, revisions to make, it's more important to do that and get that settled, um, as, as best we can. But on the other hand, those are, um, those are not nearly as complicated or, you know, talking about even, you know, the Axim Axim of existence is not gonna change. Um, the metaphysical point, the, um, ethics of families is, as I was saying earlier, a really open and really complicated, um, issue. So, Speaker 11 00:54:57 And do you think that, uh, progress will come primarily from, uh, uh, an organization like Atlas society, like a think tank or, or will it come from academia or maybe industry or, or where do you, where do you see the most progress being made? Uh, Speaker 0 00:55:13 Well right now, I think, uh, think tanks because you, we don't have much representation in universities. Uh, although people in universities like Richard and our other, uh, scholars, um, you know, are carrying the ideas and developing them in their classes and, um, uh, scholarly writing. And I also, I just wanna say also there are a lot of people in business who are applying objective ideas to, um, the management of their business. And that's an area where I would expect, um, you know, if, um, advances in, in understanding, um, and hopefully can someone will be able to write them up. Speaker 11 00:56:02 Thank you. Speaker 1 00:56:04 Okay, ed, you have a quick question and, you know, I wanna let everybody know tomorrow we have, uh, actually another clubhouse with professor Salzman. It's gonna be ask me anything on, it's gonna be, um, two o'clock west coast time. So, uh, we will have a chance to, um, to further, uh, develop some of these ideas that we've discussed today. So, um, ed, did you have a quick question that you wanna bring up Hutchins? All right. Have Speaker 12 00:56:43 You I'm here? Yeah, just real quickly. Hi, David. Um, in, I think it was 1989 when peacock, uh, uh, introduced his new course on objectiveism in New York city, Iran answered questions. And I asked her, uh, are there areas where she thinks objectiveism needs more work? And she said the relationship between, uh, induction and deduction, which I point out is one of David Kelly's, uh, areas. And David, I don't know if you wanna speak to that. I'll also mention by the way that in David's book and in the speech he gave in 1990 in February, when he launched the organization, uh, you mentioned David that peacock complained about people who have one foot in the objectiveist world and the other foot in sort of the conventional world. And you rightly said, well, you should. I thought there was, uh, one world and we should have both feet in it. And I think that kind of answers the who cares, whether it's consistent with Rand, it's gotta be consistent with objective reality. I think that was the point you were making. I'm curious, you have, if you ever talked to Rand about induction versus deduction, was she identified as an area that needed more work? Speaker 0 00:57:48 Yeah. Oh, she did. And, um, and I think more work has been done. And at some point, even, um, there was a lot of controversy about the induction book by, uh, pickoff and Harriman in 2010 mm-hmm <affirmative>. But, um, at one point it, Leonard said it in as many, almost in as many words that this is in addition to objectiveism. So, um, yeah, I, I don't know what to make of it, but I <laugh>. Thanks for reminding me about the two feet in reality world, uh, uh, two feet in the world, um, or reality that's, that's what I come back to all the time and I think we should all come back to that. We're just we're thinkers. There's a world. Let's understand it. Mm-hmm Speaker 12 00:58:32 <affirmative> Speaker 1 00:58:33 Here, here. Thank you. Thanks, David. Uh, great questions, great discussion everyone. Um, I learned a lot as always and, uh, and we're gonna be back tomorrow again on clubhouse with professor Richard Salzman, please go to the ATLA society website, sign up to get updates and, um, and I'll see you tomorrow. Speaker 0 00:58:56 Thanks everyone.