What makes an Objectivist?

Questions about Objectivism
1

So I finished reading The Virtue of Selfishness, specific criticisms aside I found myself agreeing with almost everything that was being said. This is the only book I have read by Ayn Rand thus far but this combined with interviews I have seen and other pieces I’ve read, it looks like my thoughts and world-view are very much in line with the philosophy she laid out.

I would be reluctant to call myself an Objectivist however, because besides the fact that I haven’t properly explored the philosophy, from what I’ve been told it’s a closed philosophical system, and probably most importantly where I would agree on multiple issues they might still be independent issues to me, my belief that reality is objective has nothing to do with my minarchism, whereas an Objectivist somehow draws one from the other, and if I really think about it if I met Ayn Rand in person I’m sure she would regard me as an altruist.

I’m not looking to “join the club” so to speak, but I’m honestly curious as to what principles or ideas someone has to accept in order to legitimately call themselves an Objectivist.

Thank you.

2

Insofar as you have explicitly suggested with your post, I think it’s best to reiterate what Ayn Rand stated when a reporter asked her to, “give me Objectivism while standing on one foot” (or words to that effect.) She summarized the basic premises or tenets of her philosophy:

  1. Reality exists as it is. There’s no “man behind the curtain pulling levers” i.e. no God. At the same time, there _is_ a universe that exists, and it’s identifiable by human senses. “Seeing is believing” as far as this issue is concerned.

  2. Reason is the sole legitimate means to actual knowledge. Even though there isn’t a God, in any case praying or otherwise resorting to emotions as a primary source of information for guidance is out. Emotions are of a reactionary nature under any circumstances. They can provide useful feedback if the person in question has his wits about him, but ultimately he still has to use logic to draw conclusions based on what he’s gathered from sensory perception. His mind is his “motor”, and logic is his core “operating system kernel” so to speak.

  3. An individual is the sole ends and means to and for his life ultimately. That is, he is neither to sacrifice himself to others nor sacrifice others to himself. Charity can be legitimate, but it’s never a raison d’etre. He is to utilize his resources to further his life via rational means.

  4. An individual is a trader of values for values. Since laissez-faire Capitalism is the one and only political system that condones and thrives on rational ethics, it is Capitalism that must be used to govern a nation-state provided that as Ben Franklin said, “…if you can keep it.” Just as a man must live for his own life, his country must be overwhelmingly concerned with the protection of the individual rights of citizens who reside there. There must be a Constitutional Republican form of government as indicated by The Charters of Freedom for example documents; otherwise, the citizenry will be subject to abuses of power.

Now, that’s the bare minimum for even attempting to be an Objectivist (or as far as I’m concerned even for being an American!) Nevertheless, Objectivism requires extensive study as any serious philosophy would. Fortunately, Miss Rand’s system is integrated in a cohesive manner such that people can come at it from different entry points and still get the gist of it or even comprehensively understand it and put it into practice.

It is NOT necessary to immediately understand or even agree with every detail of Objectivism to learn about it and make some use of it. Still, as she has stated, if someone has been presented with her philosophy in full, and that person takes exception with certain specific critical aspects of her system e.g. her views on virtue, or her theory of concepts, then that person shouldn’t consider himself to be in line with Objectivism.

People have struggled with names and terms in attempting to come up with qualified identifications. I tend to think that someone who agrees with the essentials i.e. the “standing on one foot” tenets is a proto-Objectivist i.e. a potential adherent. On the other hand, I think that if someone does have serious misgivings or engages in what AR called “flights of fancy”, then that person would simply do well to study and consider more of her ideas before being so concerned about whether he’s an Objectivist or not. Many people refer themselves as “students of Objectivism” even instead of “Objectivists” simply because it puts the focus on their interests rather than on some burden of proving their consistency.

3

The question here is not “What is Objectivism?” but rather “What makes an Objectivist?”

There is no list. Objectivism is a method, a way, a tao. Learn the method.

The core is to learn how metaphysics, epistemology and ethics relate to each other.

What is distinctively and uniquely Objectivist is the theory of concepts. It makes possible a resolution of the problem of universals and inductive reasoning.

4

The core is to learn how metaphysics, epistemology and ethics relate to each other.

So would the implication then be that the derivative ideas, specifically rationality/egoism in ethics, and individual rights/lasseiz faire capitalism, ought to be at least pretty well accepted if someone has enough of the method down to understand it??

More complex topics notwithstanding, I can’t see you disagreeing with these and having any clear grasp of the underlying topics you mention.

5

I believe the question here is, at what point and under what circumstances can a person legitimately make the claim that they are Objectivists.

As Melchior noted, it’s a closed philosophy. In order for some statement or argument to be considered Objectivism, it would have to be demonstrably in accord with something Ayn Rand posited herself as part of Objectivism, or was posited by someone else and approved by her. But the question at issue here is not whether an idea is Objectivist, but whether an individual is an Objectivst.

I see the following possibilities:

  1. A person precisely agrees with Ayn Rand and hasn’t in any way, shape or form considered topics beyond what she has considered. This is a null set of people, at least since 1982, and I suspect Rand considered some things and never wrote about them, so even there I suspect she wouldn’t be part of this group were she still alive.

2a) Someone agrees with some parts of it, and hasn’t thought at all about other parts, but has no actual disagreements so far. This person is a potential Objectivist.

2b) Someone agrees with some parts, and actively disagrees with others. This ranges from NO to HELL NO. And that NO, if it’s truly a side issue the person disagrees with, may even be a maybe (e.g., if someone disagrees about the particular nature of “instinct” and “volition” but still agrees that man is the rational animal and must use his rational faculty to survive, he will still arrive at the Objectivst ethics). But Kelley and Branden are definitely HELL NO grade 2b cases.

3a) Someone agrees with Objectivism, and has added on to it–considered issues that Ayn Rand has not considered. Ayn Rand herself, I believe, expected that this would happen. Assuming the add-on doesn’t contradict, I would call this person an Objectivist, provided of course that they do not insist on regarding their extension as being part of, rather than a consequence of, Objectivism.

3b) Covers the case of an invalid (contradictory) extension of Objectivism. This will reduce to either 3a or 2b once the person resolves the contradiction–and in many cases the person *has* implicitly resolved the contradiction, in favor of their extension and they are already in group 2b.

[…and yes for the curious I chose my example about instinct and volition because it is the biggest issue I am aware of that I must resolve. Though I am probably weak in epistemology as well. Conversationally I will tend to casually group myself in with Objectivists, since no outsider would ever notice the difference, but when being very careful, leave a little distance.]

6

There is no list. Objectivism is a method, a way, a tao. Learn the method.

In this case however the way which cant be explained is not the eternal way. :pimp:

7

So if something is proposed that is in complete agreement with reason and the axioms, but Rand never wrote about it it can never be considered to be a part of Objectivism?

8

I don’t know why people always make a big deal about labeling themselves “Objectivist” or not. Call yourself a Dickhead for all I care. All that matters is your ideas in my estimation.

9

So if something is proposed that is in complete agreement with reason and the axioms…

I think the issue is: who gets to decide that it is in agreement?

Technically, Objectivism implicitly agrees with all reality, undiscovered or not. Explicitly, it is what Rand said it was.

I don’t think one should nor should worry about labeling the extensions Objectivism as such. In fact, if fundamental enough, extensions (or corrections) will stand on their own merit (and name). I think most people who really make an issue of maintaining the label on extensions or corrections are making very incremental changes and hoping to cash in on Objectivism’s “brand equity”.

10

I don’t know why people always make a big deal about labeling themselves “Objectivist” or not. Call yourself a Dickhead for all I care. All that matters is your ideas in my estimation.

While the ideas are primary, the act of, possibly falsely, including yourself in the Objectivist community by labelling yourself an Objectivist, can lead to grave misunderstandings by those who don’t understand Oism. Imagine the person that might want to understand and may have become an Oist themselves, but is turned off by someone else claiming to be an Oist while espousing ideas antithetical to the philosophy.

It’s kind like W claiming to be a Republican. Does category hold any meaning any more if you accept that he is?

11

For the record I was not trying to gauge whether or not a I should label myself an Objectivist, that’s not my intention and I honestly don’t see myself reconciling the disagreements I have with Rand’s philosophy, as few as they are, any time soon. I was just curious, considering how those disagreements are few (but probably big), exactly what basic concepts one would have to accept to consider themselves an Objectivist, where there is no room for disagreement.

Just as someone wouldn’t be considered a Christian if they didn’t accept that Christ was the messiah, regardless of how much they practiced Christian tenets, I suspect there are a lot of people like me who like a large amount of what Ayn Rand said but aren’t convinced by all her premises or how she went from step A to step B; Like I said, I still don’t see how accepting that there is an objective reality inevitably leads, in a series of drawn conclusions, to accepting capitalism as the best economic system, even if I actually do accept both of those facts.

I think it’s more accurate to say that I like Objectivism but I myself am not an Objectivist. When a discussion about Ayn Rand and her philosophy comes up I find myself defending her more often than not.

I’m not going to stop with just the The Virtue of Selfishness, several other books are on my reading list including: For the New Intellectual, Capitalism : The Unknown Ideal, I find her non-fiction easy to read. I started reading The Fountainhead but didn’t finish it, so that’s on my to-do-list, and of course I have my eyes on Atlas Shrugged even though I’m afraid to read it. :lol:

The main reason I’m interested in Ayn Rand is because, along with Milton Friedman and company, she’s supposedly one of the major influences on the modern libertarian movement, whether she would have liked that fact or not. After reading The Virtue of Selfishness I can see why! (why she’s an influence, not why she didn’t like libertarians). In light of this I’m planning to return to Radicals for Capitalism, which I didn’t finish reading either.

12

For the record I was not trying to gauge whether or not a I should label myself an Objectivist, that’s not my intention and I honestly don’t see myself reconciling the disagreements I have with Rand’s philosophy, as few as they are, any time soon. I was just curious, considering how those disagreements are few (but probably big), exactly what basic concepts one would have to accept to consider themselves an Objectivist, where there is no room for disagreement.

It’s hard to say because it’s like the “how many hairs make a beard?” question. You can’t say *exactly* how many hairs make a beard. There’s a range. You can specify that it has to be more than a certain minimum, but the specifics of that “more” are going to vary from person to person.

Like I said, I still don’t see how accepting that there is an objective reality inevitably leads, in a series of drawn conclusions, to accepting capitalism as the best economic system, even if I actually do accept both of those facts.

Well, to be technical, it *doesn’t* because the axioms don’t say *anything* about what *type* of existence or consciousness we’re dealing with. The epistemological and ethical developments aren’t *deduced* from the axioms, they’re arrived-at inductively by looking at what *type* of reality there is and what *type* of consciousness we have. If you’re trying to understand Objectivism as a deductive chain, I can see why you’re having problems!

A real Objectivist, in my mind, is someone who has gone out and verified to their own satisfaction such things as that, yes, humans have volition and concepts are tied to reality via the measurement-omission method as described by Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. It’s not enough just to say “that sounds reasonable” without looking around at the evidence that presents itself to you on your own initiative.

So, I suppose you could say that my definiton of an Objectivist is someone who agrees with Objectivism *on the basis of the evidence*, not just because they liked Ayn Rand’s writings for whatever half-identified reason.

13

So would the implication then be that the derivative ideas, specifically rationality/egoism in ethics, and individual rights/lasseiz faire capitalism, ought to be at least pretty well accepted if someone has enough of the method down to understand it??

More complex topics notwithstanding, I can’t see you disagreeing with these and having any clear grasp of the underlying topics you mention.

Yes. Objectivism rejects rationalism and skepticism. Ultimately no one can ever claim to understand anything without getting past these two fallacious doctrines, even (especially?) Objectivism itself. I believe that once a person can get over that hump they are truly “open to reason”. And then it is only a matter of time and further integration to reach Objectivism’s “higher mysteries”. :dough:

14

I still don’t see how accepting that there is an objective reality inevitably leads, in a series of drawn conclusions, to accepting capitalism as the best economic system, …

That’s ok. It’s early yet. It is all there in black and white. All you need to get it is an honest mind. Slow down, take your time, and realize that what you call yourself should be near the bottom of your intellectual priorities list. At the top of the list are the ideas and principles that guide your life’s choices and their relationship to that objective reality. They stand or fall on their own merit independent of all else.

On the original question you asked, it is interesting to note that Rand requested that no one claim to be an Objectivist. She explained that it was her personal philosophy, and she was the only “Objectivist.” Others were naturally free to acknowledge and adopt her ideas and to incorporate them into their own personal philosophy. She recommended that we refer to ourselves as “students of Objectivism”.

That I read in something she wrote herself. Additionally, from some biographical writing there is a report that she also did not like the term “Randian”, thinking it would lead to charges of cultism. Needless to say, the no holds barred internet/blogosphere she could not foresee has relegated these sentiments to the naive wish pile. Those wishes notwithstanding, I have capitulated to the vulgate and am now comfortable referring to myself and others as “Objectivists”. And that is just about the only issue on which I can disagree with her.