From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 02:26:32 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <106559@bu.edu>, ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
|> >I have never understood why people don't voluntarily give up their claim of
|> >being Objectivists when they wish to deviate from that philosopy which is by
|> >definition exclusive. Just call it something else and say it has nothing to do
|> >with Objectivism ...
|>  
|> (Again, a striking parallel with Christian Science, which holds that the
|> writings of Mary Baker Eddy are never to be questioned or even
|> interpreted, but merely read or recited.)
|>  
|> Look, philosophical systems are not software: you don't "own" them just
|> because you were the first to present an idea. If there is something to
|> this "objectivism", then it is the prerogative of anyone who so chooses
|> to attempt to refine and improve it. Particularly if it is the kind of
|> Pure Light of Reason that so many seem to feel it is! You can't "define"
|> a philosophy into exclusiveness, any more that you can define a branch
|> of mathematics into exclusiveness and say, "if you find any alleged
|> faults in these proofs, and present them in corrected form, you aren't
|> finding anything 'wrong' with my proofs, you're just substituting your
|> own". Besides, even if you could get away with it (academically
|> speaking), what kind of intellectual integrity is that - to insist that
|> your system is *by definition* not subject to criticism???

You misunderstood my post. I am not saying that this is a reasonable attitude on
part of Ayn Rand. The word Objectivism with a capital 'O' came into existence
by Ayn Rand defining it to be a closed set of ideas (to be extended only by 
her). I don't see why those who do not agree with this  are so fascinated by this word
or her name when she would hate you if you added one little thing. 

I can't own any philosophy but can't I say that a closed set of particular ideas
is what I call as MNP (Madhav Nerurkar's Philosophy) and request that if you add
something to it that I do not approve, don't call it MNP. This, of course, will
not work if MNP was already coined by someone else. I do not believe "Objectivism"
was coined before Rand.

|>  
|> >The other day on TV, I saw a Muslim woman that was raped by a Serbian militant
|> >and who gave birth to a daughter who she did not even want to see...
|> >I really sorry for the child. I want to reconcile this feeling with rest of my
|> >rational thought in which Objectivistic ideas figure prominently.
|>  
|> That fact that feelings of compassion for an innocent, unwanted child,
|> doomed to a miserable fate, are seen as posing a dilemma for your
|> "objectivism" is a sad statement on the nature of this so-called
|> "philosophy". What would the orthodox say, that you're being a "slave",
|> a "second-hander", an "incompetent", a member of the "Kantian mob"?

You are justified in saying so based on my post. What I inadvertently ommitted is
wanting to help this child personally. Yes, this is not an "orthodox" thing to
do if I understand Ayn Rand correctly.


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism