Notablog

"We are all post-Randians now." Fantastic quote, Chris. And an excellent interview! Looking forward to the next JARS. Hope you are feeling well.

Hey, thanks Dennis. The issue should be out sometime in May!

Your discussion of looking at issues on "many different levels of generality" was a key spark for my book idea.

By the way,does the term Randian mean someone who views objectivism as a closed system?

Hey, Nick: I use the term "Randian" in the same way I'd use the term "Kantian" or "Aristotelian." It is much wider than "Objectivist" and would include those who were influenced by Rand, even if such people would not be characterized as "Objectivists." As I state in my essay, "In Praise of Hijacking," "'Randian' is, of course, a wide designation, meaning 'of, relating to, or resembling' Rand's philosophic framework—since every act of personal interpretation or application by anyone on any subject is a step removed from Rand’s formally enunciated philosophy."

Thanks for clearing that up,but what's your meaning behind all of us being post-Randians now?

My understanding of what Chris meant was that the debates about who is or is not a “true Objectivist” have now become pedantic. It is a pointless game played by pretenders to the throne that only one person has ever rightly claimed. Ayn Rand gave us the basic principles. Beyond that, we are all on our own. To attack other Randians by calling them “enemies of Objectivism” is tantamount to claiming clairvoyance--and preposterous on its face.

Thanks for your additional comments, folks.