I’ve heard many people say that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand; to be an Objectivist, you must adhere to it in its entirety, as it was set forth by Ayn Rand. I’ve heard that, by definition, an Objectivist does not disagree with Ayn Rand on any point – otherwise he is not an Objectivist. If I’m wrong, just stop reading and let me know – the rest of this post depends on my correct understanding of the above.
Isn’t this sort of thing dangerous? Isn’t it dogmatic? I see Objectivism as a science; the science of rational philosophy. Dogma and science do not go hand in hand – dogma restricts the change and growth on which science depends. I strongly doubt that Ayn Rand was infallible, and I think it a reasonable that her philosophy is likewise imperfect.
A rational philosopher, as I see it, does not bind himself to dogma in any way. If Objectivism truly is only the philosophy of Ayn Rand (and no permutation of it), then it is intellectually irresponsible to call yourself an Objectivist – you are restricting yourself to dogma. If you suddenly find something you disagree with, do you lose your right to refer to yourself as an Objectivist until you ‘correct’ your error and rejoin the fold? The term ‘Objectivism,’ then, is antithesis to free thought; it applies a restriction to how you think, in that your first priority is no longer to understand and adhere to reality, but to understand and adhere to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of reality.
Perhaps my issue is in how I view Objectivism. I’ve never seen it as Ayn Rand’s creation, but as her discovery. From the three primary axioms to the affirmation of logic to the use of reason to arrive at rational morality, politics and ultimately a society, everything is based on what is real. Ayn Rand didn’t create Objectivism any more than Newton created gravity; they were both unparalleled geniuses who discovered objective truth.
Defining Objectivism as this philosophical discovery, then, it strikes me as natural to open Objectivism up to logical analysis and modification – improving its relation to existence without regard to Ayn Rand’s initial interpretation of it. As Einstein permitted himself to expand Newton’s theory of gravity without having to call it something else, we should be permitted to expand Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism without having to rename it. Restricting the term ‘Objectivism’ to a dogmatic, unquestioning, absolute reliance on Ayn Rand’s specifically described philosophy strikes me as oddly anti-Objectivist. Restricting ‘Objectivism’ to Ayn Rand’s interpretation of existence instead of the reality of existence (subject to our continued analysis and discovery) is akin to espousing Primacy of Consciousness over Primacy of Existence.
I’m not saying that Ayn Rand was wrong at all; I’m far too inexperienced with her philosophy to make such a sweeping claim. For all I know, she may have been perfectly correct – a Pythagorus instead of a Newton, and her interpretation of existence is the reality of existence. My point, though, is that it would be more responsible to rest ‘Objectivism’ on the reality of existence than on her interpretation. Doing so would give us the potential to correct any errors that may exist, and this is something we know John Galt would agree with:
“An error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error.”
Relating independent discovery vs. faith to relying on reality vs. relying on Ayn Rand’s words, is the above not equally applicable?
) But ITOE is complete. Ironically-calling it the philosophy of Ayn Rand actually delineates it (to separate it from the TOC ilk) and expands it (to encompass her other works-which is appropriate I think).