A philosophy is not an eclectic conjuring of ideas: it is not like "4 ideas on reality, 6 ideas on knowledge, 3 on ethics, 8 or 9 on politics, and, you know, you could be right on A3, but not B4 and C7", that is not a philosophy. For what we've already said just about integration: you should know that a proper philosophy is one totality and it's an issue on their basic principles and consequences. So it's either all right or all wrong if it's an integrated system. [...]

> Do you have the duty to add on and, if necessary, correcting the existing ideas of objectivism?

Well, I agree that anyone interested in it, who is a professional and a philosopher —and that's his field—, if he can, it'll be nice to come up with something more than just reiterating what was already stated. Sure, but nobody has the duty to discover something new. [...]

If anything is wrong anywhere, anybody who is interested in truth should correct it. Does that mean that maybe there is an essential principle of objectivism that is wrong? No, because, by my understanding, for the reason I just told you, it's one totality, so if any one principle (principle!) is wrong, the hole thing is collapsed, in which case it doesn't make any sense to correct it. [...]

The problem is that people that ask this questions don't distinguish between a principle from a concrete application and doubly have in mind "if I disagree by the 'woman president', shouldn't I correct objectivism?". That is not objectivism. Somethings are important but that doesn't mean they are principles.

- Leonard Peikoff. A Question and Answer Session, minute 42:13.