From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Intro to Objectivism
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 18:24:36 GMT


This is the first post of my friend's Objectivism mailing list.  He has asked
me to post it here (presumably to generate interest and so on).

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                                   1/1/93

                        Introduction to Objectivism

                              The Mailing List

                             New Year's Message


        Happy new year to all! 
        
        The start of a new year is traditionally a time for taking stock and 
a time for new beginnings. It is a time when, if ever so briefly, we try to 
pull together the threads of our lives, to think about its meaning and 
purpose, and perhaps to set new goals and directions for ourselves. At its 
best, it is a time to re-examine and re-affirm our values and to view our 
lives as an integrated whole.

        The new year is thus a particularly appropriate time to begin our
exploration of Objectivism. Objectivism takes life seriously and regards 
man's existence on earth as important, and man as competent to determine and 
to achieve the human values of his existence.

        Objectivism offers a coherent philosophy for man. It starts with the
most basic considerations of reality and of human existence. It constructs
a clearly reasoned logical framework that includes all of the important
aspects of man's existence, from productive work to love, from economics to
politics, from ethics to aesthetics. 

        Objectivism demonstrates why philosophy is a necessity and not an
option. It shows why there need be no conflict between the theoretical and
the effective, between the moral and the practical, and between the emotional
and the rational.

        To those encountering Objectivism for the first time, I wish to say
first that I envy you. If you have somehow lost hope of unifying into
one consistent whole all the fragments of your life and your existence, if
you have given up trying to understand, much less resolve, the contra-
dications and the evasions you see all around you, you have a true
intellectual adventure in store.

        You will find that a coherent framework for all of life and all of
existence is indeed possible. You will learn why the most abstract of
philosophic concepts have the most concrete of consequences. You will know 
when you know something and when you don't, when you understand something and 
when you don't, and why. You will also realize why morality and ethics are 
too important to be left to anyone but yourself. In sum, you will know what 
human existence means and implies.

        With the next communication, I intend to begin at the very beginning,
with fundamental considerations of what exists, how we know it, and what
that knowledge implies. We will discuss some basics of reality, reason and
logic. You will soon see why the name "Objectivism" is so well chosen and 
how great was Ayn Rand's achievement. All the prior centuries of human 
existence have not seen constructed so cohesive a framework for human 
understanding.

        In this introductory statement, I need to make a number of 
digressions which should not have been necessary. Those of you who have
followed some of my recent exchanges have seen my right to introduce 
Objectivist thinking challenged prior to any formal presentation of such 
thinking. My right to call myself an Objectivist has also come into question.

        I do not wish here to review these exchanges in depth. To those who
are new to this forum, I do need to state the following -- hopefully for
the last time -- so that you will know my context and my foundation. From
here on in, I expect to deal only in fundamentals and reasoned consequences.
I consider myself an Objectivist because my deepest philosophical base is
identical to the fundamental logical framework of Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

        The question of what happens if I should, somewhere down the line,
differ in some particular from Ayn Rand is specious. If my thinking is
valid, my conclusions are part of Objectivism if they flow from Ayn Rand's
fundamental premises. This is true in exactly the same manner as a theorem
in geometry is part of Euclidean Geometry no matter who states or originates
it, so long as it is proven from Euclid's premises, by his methods. This much 
is obvious. Axioms have consequences, and these consequences cannot 
be severed from their premises.

        It will be very simple for you to know if I am proceeding honestly
and fairly. If I mis-represent Ayn Rand in any of her fundamentals, then I
mis-state, and to that extent do not understand, Objectivism. To that extent
then, I will deserve and expect to be corrected.

        However, by the same token, if I reason accurately from Objectivist 
premises, that reasoning and those conclusions are ipso facto part of 
Objectivism. As Ayn Rand affirmed, no individual can claim a monopoly on 
correct reasoning and what flows from a foundation, regardless of who states 
or proves it, is part of its super-structure.

        I intend always to be scrupulous in attribution; what is Ayn Rand's
will always be acknowledged as such. All of the foundations are. Any 
reasoning that is my own, perhaps in an area Ayn Rand did not discuss or
examine in depth, will be so labeled. 

        If I do not reason from Objectivist premises or if I err in so 
reasoning, I expect to be corrected and will gain from the transaction. I 
operate this mailing list as a trader exchanging my best intellectual 
efforts for yours. If I assert error and you give me back truth, I benefit 
enormously. Hopefully, in other transactions, I will have something to offer
in return towards your understanding of reality, reason, life, and man.

        Having said this, one further matter needs to be addressed. It is
not by pure whim that I have been challenged prior to any substantive
presentations. Those of you who are not specifically aware of the early
history of Objectivist thought can hardly comprehend the extent of the
vilification to which Ayn Rand was subjected -- vilification, if I may say
so, precisely becuase she was right and because she dared to re-think the
whole tradition of Judeo-Christian morality of the past several thousand
years from fundamental premises.

        The only consolation Ayn Rand and her adherents could draw from this
stream of vitriol and vituperation was the awareness that, although 
unintended, she was being paid the highest of compliments. Her thinking was
almost never challenged on its merits. Her critics had to mis-represent 
before they dared attack, as they still do. Truth remains truth.

        Perhaps in reaction to this intense campaign of mis-representation
and distortion in the media and even in academic and philosophical arenas,
supposedly dedicated to objective thinking, the early Ayn Rand circle
developed a bunker mentality.

        Many adherents genuinely seeking truth were expelled from the inner
circle, or dropped as students of Objectivism, for various "lapses" in
total adherence to the entire body of Ayn Rand's pronouncements or for
supposed inconsistencies between Objectivism and the manner in which they
conducted their lives or the values they held. With true justice, some of
the earliest and closest disciples, those entrusted with the enforcement of
full orthodoxy, were themselves read out by Ayn Rand herself.

        These events, and the further ossification of Objectivism into a
second generation orthodoxy were truly tragic. This internal strife splits 
Objectivists along artificial lines, saps Objectivism's vitality, and grants 
its opponents an ad hominem excuse for not taking Objectivism seriously. If 
its own adherents regard Objectivism as so brittle that it cannot openly 
compete on even terms in the intellectual marketplace, if its image is 
presented to the world as some delicate caged bird that supposedly can not 
survive unless ringed with rigid protective barriers, then why should anyone 
care about it?

        The tragedy is that Objectivism is a robust, coherent philosophy
that can more than hold its own. It can empower one's thinking and
revitalize one's life.

        The tragedy is that a philosophy devoted to reason, a philosophy 
consistently extolling intellectual independence and self-reliance, a 
philosophy that recognizes the power and objectivity of truth, but also 
appreciates that a truth is not yours until you have thought it through for 
yourself, is undeservedly cast in an image of intellectual protectionism and 
fear of the free marketplace of ideas.

        The tragedy is that Objectivism still bears the scars of those 
earliest, most brutal and unjust assaults upon it. So afraid were the early
Objectivists of being mis-represented by one of their own, as they were
by their opponents, that they took no chances, conveying the title
"Objectivist" much as a symbol of membership in an army, where ideological
disputes could only lead to weakness. To this day, this attitude remains.

        The tragedy is that, if the bird of Objectivism is allowed to soar
freely, it can fly high and far. All that it takes is a genuine commitment
to reason on all sides. Truth is objective, but to have potency in your life 
it must be your truth. Ayn Rand could typically argue rings around her 
intellectual adversaries, even in the fields of their specialization, not 
because she was smarter than they, but because she always thought in terms 
of fundamentals and always retained a luminous committment to reason.

        Clear thinking is not all that difficult, nature has given you the
capability in abundance, as your specifically human mode of survival. The
hard part is to trust yourself enough to use it and to follow it wherever
it may lead. The deepest payment I can make to Ayn Rand for the riches she
has given me is never to focus on her authority but only on her reasoning
and on our shared premises.

        Lastly, I need your feedback to keep this list robust and on track. 
Any communication I receive regarding the material on this list, from which 
I think we all may benefit, I will feel free to post and attribute. I
consider this part of the scrupulous crediting of ideas and of the feedback 
that I owe you. I realize however, from a prior private communication, that 
some may not desire direct quotation or attribution. If so, please notify me 
to that effect and I will respect your wishes. If the ideas are important 
however, they will be addressed.

        I look forward to an intellectual adventure from which we all can
profit. Again, best wishes for a prosperous new year.

Sincerely yours,
Stimpson J. Katz
Siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US

P.S.: If you have received this message from anyplace other than the
Introduction to Objectivism Mailing List at Momad.LI.NY.US, you are welcome 
to subscribe. Send a message to "Server@Momad.LI.NY.US" containing the line
"Subscribe Ayn-Rand" in the body of the message. Comments should be addressed
to "Rand@Momad.LI.NY.US"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entire contents Copyright (C) 1993 Stimpson J. Katz, 
All rights reserved, except as below:
Permission is given to distribute this material electronically provided that 
it is unedited and presented in its entirety, including the copyright notice. 
Distribution in print or distribution of excerpts (I realize it isn't always
the beginning of a new year) requires permission, address requests to 
"Rand@Momad.LI.NY.US", no fee will be requested. I wish to be assured that 
I am not mis-represented and am made aware of where my work is being 
distributed. Quotation of brief excerpts is permitted so long as they are 
attributed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: This work is intended for distribution to those interested in 
the philosophical works of Ayn Rand. The ideas expressed herein are those
solely of myself. No representation or claim is made that the I speak for 
Ayn Rand, Objectivism, or any organization or that I state official 
Objectivist positions.




Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism