Open vs. Closed System Theory

Submitted by Dan Edge on Fri, 2006-04-07 20:32
Open vs Closed System
I am an advocate of Objectivism as a "closed system" of philosophical thought. I've considered this issue from many different angles and degrees of complexity over the years, but now the answer seems surprisingly clear to me. Several years ago, I asked myself the questions: "If I view Objectivism as an open system of thought, then how exactly do I define the term 'Objectivism?' What are the referents of 'Objectivism' in reality?" Based on the open system theory, I found these questions to be unanswerable.
One must have epistemological precision with his concepts, particularly in the study of philosophy. I have found that one of the best ways to deepen my understanding of a subject is to go back and more precisely define concepts relating to that subject. The closed system perspective makes this possible with respect to Objectivism. Assuming a closed system, I can define exactly what Objectivism is, and what its referents are in reality. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
We have a here a genus (philosophy) and a species (of Ayn Rand). If I am discussing Objectivism with other philosophers who agree on the closed system method, I can be confident that we are all talking about the same thing. If we do not agree on the definition of Objectivism, if everyone defines it his own special way, then the discussion can never really get off the ground.
Consider how one would define 'Objectivism' using the open system theory. Perhaps it would look something like this: "Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, except where Ayn Rand contradicted herself or was incomplete in her extrapolation of a particular area of thought." Or like this: "Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand in terms of the fundamental principles she laid out, which do not include certain aspects of applied politics or ethics or whatever else one determines to be non-fundamental at some unspecified time in the future." What is the genus and the species here? What exactly are the referents?
I do not think I am creating a straw man of the open system theory. If any open system advocates would like to offer a precise definition of Objectivism, I would be interested to hear it. But I don't think such is possible. My conclusion is that Rand's epistemological Razor requires that we define the concept "Objectivism" in as precise a manner as possible. This implies a closed system. Not to mention that Rand explicitly requested that the term be used in this way. I will honor her request out of respect for her achievement, as well as out of epistemological necessity.
I do not consider the closed system to be a hinderance to my pursuit of knowledge in any way. I do not restrict my thinking to what Ayn Rand wrote. In fact, I prefer to focus on areas not thoroughly covered in Rand's writings; it's more exciting to cover new ground. But since I agree with Rand's philosophy, I would have a very difficult time exploring new ideas without a complete, precise, stable understanding of the concept "Objectivism."-----------------
One related issue worth noting is the question of whether or not Rand's contemporaries deserve a concept of their own. I believe that Rand's influence will continue hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of years into the future. In that time, a significant body of work will be produced that is based on and logically consistent with Rand's Objectivism. Already, there are tens of thousands of pages of new philosophical thought that is consistent with Objectivism. Do we need concept referring to these contributions?
My tentative conclusion is: 'No.' The descriptive notation "inspired by Rand" or "based on Objectivism" or something like that is sufficient. I think it would be too confusing to try to nail down an "open" concept for Rand's contemporaries for the same reason an open system of Objectivism is confusing. I say, let philosophers come up with their own theories and name the ideas themselves, like Peikoff's DIM hypothesis, or my own Mind-Body-Spirit Integration theory.--------------------
One last related thought: If one accepts the closed system theory, then claiming that an idea is "not Objectivism" is not a criticism of that idea. It only means that the idea was not originated by Rand. I think that closed system advocates often encourage confusion over the term Objectivism by equating the charge of "Non-Objectivist" with "Irrational." Closed system advocates should lead by example, using the term Objectivism in as precise a manner as possible.