What qualifies as Objectivism?

Questions about Objectivism
1

The Passage from Thought Control, Part III spawned a debate about whether it is Objectivism, and the question “what qualifies as Objectivism?”

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Should one treat a philosophical position taken by Ayn Rand as part of her philosophy if one judges the position to be untrue and incompatible with the remainder that is accepted?

I will begin the discussion with my answer: yes. There is nothing about the concept “philosophy” that demands correctness (most of the philosophies in history have been incorrect), nor is there a requirement for it to be integrated into a coherent whole. Because of this, to say that one of Ayn Rand’s philosophical positions cannot be part of Objectivism because Objectivism is wholly correct and integrated begs the question, and more: by one’s own judgment, it isn’t. One simply disagrees with it. Such disagreement, however, does not logically enable one to exclude from “Objectivism” those positions with which one differs. Objectivism has no severability clause. It is the entire philosophy of Ayn Rand, which includes all of her philosophical positions.

2

I agree with your conclusion entirely. The claim is that Objectivism is a specific philosophy with a definite identity. Whether or not that philosophy is entirely correct (describes reality) or internally consistent is logically a derivative question. You cannot redefine Objectivism as “the correct philosophy”.

If Objectivism is in fact correct, then rejecting one part of Objectivism either means that you don’t understand that aspect of the philosophy (or aspects that it depends on) well enough to reject it rather than be puzzled, or you have in fact rejected one of the principle ideas of Objectivism, either that man should live by reason (this allows you to embrace contradiction) or that reality is primary (the facts have first claim on your attention). Since I can’t see a rational being striving for either of those two options, the only possibility remaining for the person who rejects Objectivism is to prove that it is internally incoherent. Many have tried, none have come even a little close.

3

Absolutely, I agree with both of the above. Objectivism is defined as “the philosophy of Ayn Rand,” which means the philosophy as she wrote it.

It is not any idea that you or I happen to think is true. It is not any portion of philosophy that you or I happen to think is true. It is not any portion of Ayn Rand’s writings that you or I happen to think is true. It is the philosophy that Ayn Rand thought was true. She is, very sadly, no longer alive, so she cannot change her mind anymore. It does not matter if you or I think that she “would have” changed her mind on a given point of philosophy - the fact is that she cannot do so. Her philosophy is what it is as she wrote it and it will be that way forevermore.

I think that her philosophy is true. But the definition of her philosophy is “the philosophy that Ayn Rand wrote,” not “the philosophy which is true.” To say that it is true is an entirely different proposition than saying it is defined as “that which is true.” It is not defined that way. It is defined as “the philosophy that Ayn Rand wrote,” whether that happens to be true or untrue, consistent or inconsistent.

If you don’t think so, then you should read fact and value.

IN HIS LAST PARAGRAPH, Kelley states that Ayn Rand’s philosophy, though magnificent, “is not a closed system.” Yes, it is. Philosophy, as Ayn Rand often observed, deals only with the kinds of issues available to men in any era; it does not change with the growth of human knowledge, since it is the base and precondition of that growth. Every philosophy, by the nature of the subject, is immutable. New implications, applications, integrations can always be discovered; but the essence of the system — its fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch — is laid down once and for all by the philosophy’s author. If this applies to any philosophy, think how much more obviously it applies to Objectivism. Objectivism holds that every truth is an absolute, and that a proper philosophy is an integrated whole, any change in any element of which would destroy the entire system.

In yet another expression of his subjectivism in epistemology, Kelley decries, as intolerant, any Objectivist’s (or indeed anyone’s) “obsession with official or authorized doctrine,” which “obsession” he regards as appropriate only to dogmatic viewpoints. In other words, the alternative once again is whim or dogma: either anyone is free to rewrite Objectivism as he wishes or else, through the arbitrary fiat of some authority figure, his intellectual freedom is being stifled. My answer is: Objectivism does have an “official, authorized doctrine,” but it is not dogma. It is stated and validated objectively in Ayn Rand’s works.

“Objectivism” is the name of Ayn Rand’s achievement. Anyone else’s interpretation or development of her ideas, my own work emphatically included, is precisely that: an interpretation or development, which may or may not be logically consistent with what she wrote. In regard to the consistency of any such derivative work, each man must reach his own verdict, by weighing all the relevant evidence. The “official, authorized doctrine,” however, remains unchanged and untouched in Ayn Rand’s books; it is not affected by any interpreters.

Bold mine.

Note the wording - its fundamental principles and their consequences are laid down once and for all by the author. Not that the author laid down the principles and it is up to you to reinterpret the consequences. The philosophy is and will remain both fundamentals and consequences - as laid down by the philosopher. This is what is meant by a closed system, not to be changed, re-interpreted, or added to.

4

It is not any idea that you or I happen to think is true. It is not any portion of philosophy that you or I happen to think is true. It is not any portion of Ayn Rand’s writings that you or I happen to think is true.

I agree completely with what you and DavidOdden wrote. The only thing I would add to be absolutely clear with reference to the above is that Objectivism isn’t even any idea that is in fact true about philosophy.

Objectivism is a completely rational and integrated whole presented in a certain systematic way.

I think Objectivism is true and have seen no evidence to the contrary. Seeker, if you have discovered an error I would love to hear about it.

5

What is a philosophy? Seeker says that “there is nothing about the concept “philosophy” that demands correctness, nor is there a requirement for it to be integrated into a coherent whole”. Before such a statement can be made or accepted, the definition of “philosophy” has to be presented. I would like you to provide yours before engaging in this discussion.

6

I would like you to provide yours before engaging in this discussion.

Why don’t you use Rand’s own criteria from ITOE, which is what we all use here?

7

It is a legitimate question to ask: Which of Rand’s writings ought properly to be considered part of Objectivism, and which are her personal opinions or applications of her own philosophy that she would not consider formally to be a part of it? She never gave us a list. For instance, many do not consider her essay about a woman president, or her thoughts on the baseness of homosexuality, to be a part of Objectivism. Certainly her preference for Rachmaninoff over Beethoven is not a part of Objectivism. A line can be drawn here – where, precisely, is a legitimate topic for discussion.

But I don’t think we can begin to approach this question unless we all agree that ‘Objectivism’ is a proper name referring to (what Diana Hsieh called) an “abstact particular.” It doesn’t make any sense for a proper name to refer to a set of ideas that is constantly changing. That would defeat the purpose of giving it a name – the name would serve to dis-integrate the ideas to which it refers, instead of integrating them.

–Dan Edge

8

Why don’t you use Rand’s own criteria from ITOE, which is what we all use here?

Because I am debating you, not Ayn Rand. And because I don’t assume that you, or any of the other participants in this discussion, actually went through the trouble of applying the criteria from ITOE to this discussion, and what your conclusions are - if I did so I’d be debating what I think you are defending, not your actual position.

So, define your terms or stand out of the discussion (with me, I mean).

9

So, define your terms or stand out of the discussion (with me, I mean).

I don’t see any point in defining “philosophy”, since there is no evidence that the meaning of the word is in question. I think you’re just seeking to disrupt the discussion and to distract from the point made in the Thought Control thread, which clearly shows that your libertarian position is plainly in contradiction to Objectivism. The burden is on you to prove that there is some significance to exactly how the word “philosophy” is defined.

10

Just to provide a perspective, this is Nathaniel Branden’s counterpoint to why Objectivism should be an open system:

[link]http://web.archive.org/web/20000819131123/http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Connect/whoownsobjectivism.asp[/link]

11

I will address all the points already raised by others, as soon as they provide their definitions. If I seem uncooperative, that is because I know I’m going to get challenged from every direction for supporting the dissenting opinion. I’m unwilling to attempt that multi-sided discussion while having to deal with unessential tangents or people questioning my motivations - as exemplified by David’s response.

If we are to discuss what is Objectivism, and Objectivism is “the philosophy of Ayn Rand”, the definition of “philosophy” is essential. I won’t waste my time with people who are unwilling to state their definitions and premises. I am no longer considering David’s input to this discussion.

12

For instance, many do not consider her essay about a woman president, or her thoughts on the baseness of homosexuality, to be a part of Objectivism.

There is a simple reason for that: She said in that essay “The issue is primarily psychological.” She gave a similar disclaimer for the issue of homosexuality. Psychology is not a branch of philosophy. However, the “thought control” article spoke of rights, i.e. ethics and politics, which most certainly does qualify as philosophy.

I am no longer considering David’s input to this discussion.

Stances like that, especially this early in the discussion, are hasty and very much unhelpful. I think you should reconsider. (if you listen to me at all any more, that is)

13

So, define your terms or stand out of the discussion (with me, I mean).

You can stand out of this discussion as well if it is being carried out in unsatisfactory way to you and if you are going to assume a hostile tone. By all means, don’t “waste your time”.

I won’t waste my time with people who are unwilling to state their definitions and premises. I am no longer considering David’s input to this discussion.

Don’t waste our time either with unhelpful, hostile digressions.

14

Just to provide a perspective, this is Nathaniel Branden’s counterpoint to why Objectivism should be an open system:

[link]http://web.archive.org/web/20000819131123/http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Connect/whoownsobjectivism.asp[/link]

Branden speaking one what he thought Rand thought about an “open system”. That’s rich! Have you read PARC Moebius? I knew I smelled something fishy, but I hadn’t pegged you as a Kelleyite.

Instead of letting this essay speak for itself, why don’t you tell us what exactly it is about the essay that you find a valid argument. I love when people toss out links but don’t actually make a point.

15

Dan is right on the money, on both counts.

It is a legitimate question to ask: Which of Rand’s writings ought properly to be considered part of Objectivism, and which are her personal opinions or applications of her own philosophy that she would not consider formally to be a part of it?.. A line can be drawn here – where, precisely, is a legitimate topic for discussion.

Dr Peikoff is on record, in the Understanding Objectivism lectures, as agreeing both with the principle and some of the concretes Dan mentions. He has expressly said that matters such as Miss Rand’s position on a woman president are definitely outside the philosophy of Objectivism, along with other particulars such as preference for musicians, ‘sexual style,’ or concrete reactions to the sight of the New York skyline. It’s official - there is a line such as Dan asks about. Some of what Miss Rand wrote definitely is Objectivism, and some is not. Of course, that doesn’t stop Objectivism from being a closed system, as the issue here is only one of sorting out where the boundary actually is.

It doesn’t make any sense for a proper name to refer to a set of ideas that is constantly changing. That would defeat the purpose of giving it a name – the name would serve to dis-integrate the ideas to which it refers, instead of integrating them.

Indeed… which then raises an issue I would be very surprised if it hasn’t been dealt with somewhere else head on: how do we refer to new sets ideas based on Objectivism yet are not within Objectivism itself? Consider the DIM Hypothesis. As far as I know it is Dr Peikoff’s own discovery, so as it is not the work of Ayn Rand it is not part of Objectivism. What is it part of? What are the new ideas formulated by Professor Smith in her book “Viable Values” part of? Dr Buechner is working on his book on economics, based expressly on Miss Rand’s work on value - what of that? Is any integrated system of economic understanding that Dr Buechner may come up with to be known as “The Objectivist School”? If not, then what should it be called - “The Buechnerian School”? (*) And so on…

.. and therein lies what I think half the problem is for honest people who make the error Dan speaks of. To be a conceptual being - especially one who actually thinks conceptually as all Objectivists aspire to do - is to be an integrative being. Those who think and create, especially we Objectivists, will greatly tend to be inclined to integrate their work under a single conceptual reference. People are coming up with new ideas and are presently unable to put a nice tag on their own creations to refer to them with, are then improperly saying it is part of Objectivism, and subsequently getting defensive when rightly told not to do so. In their failure both to understand why and to create their own conceptual references, yet still recognising the need for integration and having such references, they start to think Objectivism being a closed system is to be taken to mean you’re not allowed to think of anything new at all, which any person even partly versed in Objectivist teachings would know is certainly not the case. In response, some reject the fact of the closed system and fall for Kelley’s nonsense, while others accept the fact of Objectivism being a closed-system but then consider Objectivism to be a mindless dogmatic creed. Either way, good people with good minds but used improperly stop being properly Objectivist, and that I hold to be a tragedy. Sometimes they come back to Objectivism, such as Diana, but the core problem is still unaddressed. Therefore, Dan is right - we must address this issue.

The essence of the solution is as simple as I have already indicated. Use Objectivist epistemology to properly integrate your system and put your own label on it to refer to it. By all means, advertise your adherence to Objectivism and your inspiration from Objectivism loudly and proudly, but avoid the temptation to call it part of Objectivism. Reject both the honest error of ignoring the fact of the closed system and the dishonesty of misappropriating Objectivism’s reputation in order to increase your audience.

(* Dr Buechner has actually raised this issue, although only as a particular. In his six-part Objective Value lectures he said that in reference to an idea in economics he presented to his students “Objectivist really means Buechner,” correcting himself in making attributions of origins of the idea he was presenting)

JJM

16

Branden speaking one what he thought Rand thought about an “open system”. That’s rich! Have you read PARC Moebius?

No.

I knew I smelled something fishy, but I hadn’t pegged you as a Kelleyite.

What the hell is a Kelleyite?

Instead of letting this essay speak for itself, why don’t you tell us what exactly it is about the essay that you find a valid argument. I love when people toss out links but don’t actually make a point.

Okay, I found this article linked to Wikipedia. The point is, as I said, to provide a perspective on those who do not think that Objectivism should be an open system.

If you want my personal opinion, then I think that since Rand developed Objectivism, she gets to define it however she wants. I do think however that the only thing that she accomplished by insisting on Objectivism being a closed system is to make it harder for academics to discuss or challenge this philosophy – to me a big reason why Objectivism is so thoroughly ignored and/or dismissed by the philosophical community and publications at large. Which is really a shame, because I do tend to agree with Objectivism more so than any other philosophical system.

Historically, are there any other philosophers that parallel Ayn Rand in insisting that what they developed by considered a closed system?

17

To my knowledge, most systems are treated as “closed systems.”

Academics are careful to distinguish between Aristotle’s philosophy and later developments of that philosophy (called "peripatetic philosophy).

I disagree with you that the “closed system” approach is responsible for academia’s lack of interest.

18

I do think however that the only thing that she accomplished by insisting on Objectivism being a closed system is to make it harder for academics to discuss or challenge this philosophy – to me a big reason why Objectivism is so thoroughly ignored and/or dismissed by the philosophical community and publications at large.

This is false. To begin with, it is easier in academic pursuits to deal rationally with a well-defined closed system that presents a specific target that can clearly and unequivocally be refuted by pointing to internal inconsistencies and lack of correspondence with reality. On those grounds, being a closed system actually should make a philosophy more amenable to rational scholarly discussion. Second, the real reason for academic’s disinterest in Objectivism stems from the fact that it presents a specific target that would need to be refuted by pointing to internal inconsistencies or lack of correspondence with reality, and the majority of academic philosophers have a known distaste for logic and reality.

19

I just noticed an important distinction that needs to be made here:

Objectivism is defined as “the philosophy of Ayn Rand,” which means the philosophy as she wrote it.

…

It is the philosophy that Ayn Rand thought was true.

My point here is that there are certain other writings which Rand agreed with, fully endorsed, and evaluated as being fully consistent with and an expression of her philosophy. An example which was published is Peikoff’s essay “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy”. I argue that works evaluated and endorsed by Rand must be consistent with her philosophy (in order for her to endorse the work). Since her philosophy is a set of ideas, not just sentences expressing the ideas, it is to be expected that not all sentences corresponding to her philosophy were written or spoken by her. The question “What was Ayn Rand’s philosophy” should be answered by reference to the ideas that she grasped and accepted as fact, as evidenced by the fact that she deliberatively committed them print or approved of them being committed to print under the aegis of her philosophical publications (such as The Objectivist).

20

Okay, I found this article linked to Wikipedia. The point is, as I said, to provide a perspective on those who do not think that Objectivism should be an open system.

OK, so you aren’t familiar with the Kelley / Branden split. The only thing I suggest is that one should be very careful about whose arguments they bring in. That article gives you less credibility in many peoples eyes, not more.

The article simply indicates, as David points out, that if Rand sanctioned something as consistent with her philosophy that this should also be considered as part of the corpus. However, since Rand is no longer available to sanction new material, then that makes Objectivism closed doesn’t it?

I wonder what it is that people want by allowing their own ideas to be called “Objectivist”? One woudl think that being labeled, “from a branch of the Objectivist school” might be quite enough identification. I’ve always seen that those who wish it open, wish to change something without having made near as significant a contribution as she did originally with the whole corpus.

Branden’s fundamental argument beyond that is that given the fact that she sanctioned him for a time, that her intent was that Objectivism would be open. As though her actions toward him and others, subsequent to her discovering that he was a louse, are of no relevance.

This is the most massive bit of psychologizing that one can engage in.