I was recently criticized for mischaracterizing Objectivism, which was surprising because the object of the criticism had almost nothing to do with Objectivism itself and was a characterization of something else altogether. Since I have already been criticized for my, "characterizations of Objectivism," I might as well make my characterization of Objectivism explicit, so my critics will not have to guess what they are from implications in other works. Now my explicit characterization may be just as open to criticism, possibly more so, but at least we will know what is being criticized.
What is Objectivism?
Objectivism is the name of a specific philosophy. That philosophy is the work of one person, and that person is Ayn Rand. We do not mean Ayn Rand never learned anything from any other philosophers, or that no one else ever helped her clarify any of her ideas; we mean, in its final form, to the extent it was complete, it is her philosophy, and no one else's.
The name, Objectivism, was chosen by Ayn Rand as the specific name of her philosophy. She toyed with other names, such as, "existentialism," which would have been a good name, since her philosophy emphasizes the primacy of existence, but was rejected since it already named a school of philosophy that contradicted most of her own. About her chosen name, Ayn Rand said:
"If you wonder why I am so particular about protecting the integrity of the term 'Objectivism,' my reason is that 'Objectivism' is the name I have given to my philosophy—therefore, anyone using that name for some philosophical hodgepodge of his own, without my knowledge or consent, is guilty of the fraudulent presumption ... of trying to pass his thinking off as mine.... What is the proper policy on this issue? If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with—and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own."
[Ayn Rand, "To the Readers of The Objectivist Forum,” The Objectivist Forum, Vol. 1, No. 1, ARI FAQ]
Who Speaks for Objectivism?
Ayn Rand specifically designated the course by Leonard Peikoff as the official version of her philosophy. She wrote: "Until or unless I write a comprehensive treatise on my philosophy, Dr. Peikoff's course is the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism, i.e., the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate."
[Ayn Rand, The Any Rand Letter, quoted in the preface of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.]
If we take Ayn Rand seriously, the only official version of Objectivism is that which is explicated in the writings of Ayn Rand herself, and, possibly, the compiled version of Dr. Peikoff's course, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Neither the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) nor Leonard Peikoff, speaking on their own, speaks for Objectivism. In general, the ARI, it appears, attempts to be consistent with Objectivism as Ayn Rand explicated it, but they do not officially represent Objectivism's teachings. Only Ayn Rand's works do that.
What About the "Randian" Cult?
Is there a Randian cult? Is Ayn Rand worshiped as a mystic authority, the great revelator of philosophic wisdom that must never be contradicted or doubted?
In this world, anything is possible, and there are some who speak of Ayn Rand in almost worshipful terms, but the accusation is usually leveled at those who only wish to preserve the fact that Objectivism is a specific philosophy of a specific person, and that variations or changes to that philosophy should not be called Objectivism.
However much the ARI, for example, is guilty of "Rand worship," it is their mandate to preserve Ayn Rand's Objectivism. ARI, like all other organizations is comprised of human beings, none of whom are infallible or omniscient. They are undoubtedly guilty of mistakes, both in their actions and their teachings; but to the extent they choose to defend Objectivism against anything other than that philosophy, as Ayn Rand explicated it, they are absolutely correct. It is hardly cultic to ruthlessly protect a concept against irrational challenges.
Preserving the integrity of Objectivism, however, does not mean Objectivism itself is sacrosanct. We are very much opposed to those who speak of Ayn Rand as though she were the last word in philosophy; but, we are very much opposed to those who do not recognize that she, and only she, is the last word in Objectivism.
Even her protégé's work contains at least two contradictions, one minor and attributable to Dr. Peikoff himself, the other major and more serious, attributable to Objectivism itself.
The minor contradiction is found in these two quotes from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand; "Consciousness is not inherent in the fact of existence as such; a world without conscious organisms is possible," (p. 5); and, "The Objectivist view of existence culminates in the principle that no alternative to a fact of reality is possible or imaginable," (p. 23).
The second quote is half correct and half incorrect. Alternatives to facts of reality are imagined all the time and positively embraced both as religions and philosophies. It is the nature of imagination to construct what is contrary to the facts of reality. If it were not, nothing new would ever be invented. We may excuse this mistake as rhetoric, but the contradiction resulting from the true part of the statement cannot be "forgiven."
If, "no alternative to a fact of reality is possible," is true, then, "a world without conscious organisms is possible," is not true, because such a world would be an alternative to the fact, in reality, the world includes conscious organisms.
The contradiction is obvious; the metaphysical and epistemological significance ought to be equally apparent. It is at least evidence that Objectivism, even in sanctioned works, is not the final word on philosophy. The major contradiction is both more subtle and more important, but is too large a subject for this article, and will be fully addressed elsewhere.
New Philosophy
Ayn Rand correctly observed that knowledge is open-ended; no knowledge, scientific, technological, or philosophical is ever complete.
We regard Objectivism is the highest achievement in and greatest contribution to philosophy since Locke, and Ayn Rand the most recent name in that series of true contributors to the field of philosophy beginning with Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes, to Aristotle, Peter Abelard, William of Occam, Francis Bacon, and John Locke. (Thomas Aquinas is intentionally excluded, because, in spite of his historical importance to the field of Philosophy, his "contributions" were negative and harmful to it.)
Ayn Rand acknowledged Aristotle as the only one she was philosophically indebted to, nevertheless, Objectivism is conceptually, the next step in philosophy after Locke (and it seems hardly possible that Rand did not see the relationship between her ethics of egoism and Locke's concept of "rational self-interest").
If philosophy is to flourish, if there is to be progress in our understanding of the nature of this world and ourselves that enables us to live successfully in it, Objectivism must not be the last step, but only the latest step, from which future progress must be launched. Just as Objectivism is not called "Lockeianism," new philosophy ought not be called Objectivism.
The Spread of Objectivism
In Chris Matthew Sciabarra's excellent article, "The Cultural Ascendancy of Ayn Rand," [The Atlasphere, 12/31/03] he concluded, "When Rand has become so much a part of the vernacular that her ideas are filtered through cartoons and comics, fiction and film, I think it is safe to assume that she has not only survived culturally, but flourished. And for those who are enamored of Rand’s philosophy, the cultural apex will be reached when her ideas are so embedded in both academia and in the American psyche that they will have brought about a veritable intellectual revolution."
There are two important facts about this article which will escape the notice of most. First, Dr. Sciabarra has the intellectual honesty not to call himself an Objectivist, or to call his views Objectivism. Secondly, while it is obvious Dr. Sciabarra celebrates the spread of the concepts of Ayn Rand's Objectivism into all areas of intellectual culture, he does not call this spread a, "movement."
Objectivism is Not a Movement
Ayn Rand, did speak of Objectivism as a movement. She said, "Objectivism is a philosophical movement; since politics is a branch of philosophy."
[Ayn Rand, "Choose Your Issues," The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan. 1962]
But she emphasized that it was not an organized movement. "I regard the spread of Objectivism through today's culture as an intellectual movement—i.e., a trend among independent individuals who share the same ideas—but not as an organized movement."
[Ayn Rand, "A Statement of Policy," The Objectivist, June 1968]
The spread of Objectivist concepts throughout todays culture is exactly as Rand observed and Dr. Sciabarra described it. If this were all that was meant by an "Objectivist movement," the concept would be acceptable.
But this is not all that is meant today by those who talk about "the Objectivist movement." While the promotion of the ideas of Objectivism is good, and the spread of those ideas is celebratory, the idea of an Objectivist movement to accomplish these things is mistaken and anti-philosophical.
Problems of an Objectivist Movement
An "Objectivist movement," is a mistake for several reasons, which we will only briefly mention:
It is intentionally, "organized." Organizations tend be authoritarian self-appointed spokesman for Objectivism, which, oddly enough, produces a kind of friction and conflict among those who might otherwise agree except for their allegiances to their particular "Objectivist" organizations.
The collective nature of organizations must not be overlooked. An organization must have some set of standards of policy and practice to which all members agree. Such agreement is almost always artificial, and those who cannot go along with the artifice, eventually rebel or are "kicked out."
Promoting an Objectivist movement makes Objectivism the very thing Objectivists reject, doctrinaire and cultic, something to be studied and embraced, not something to be critically examined and understood. We hear language like "Converting to Objectivism," or "becoming an Objectivist," or "accepting Objectivism," they way Christians accept their Savior.
An Objectivist movement makes Objectivism an end in itself, as though the purpose of philosophy were to make everyone an Objectivist. But Objectivism is only a stage in philosophy, not an end. It is the furthest we've gotten so far, and anyone who wishes to make progress in philosophy must learn the principles of Ayn Rand's Objectivism to be in a position to make any real advances in that field. Learning Objectivism should be a means, not an end, just as learning analytic geometry, while useful in itself, is also the means to learning the calculus.
Promoting Objectivism as a movement invites syncretism. Whether intentional or not, there is the attempt to make Objectivism conform to and include ideas that are not Objectivist at all. We see articles like, Carl Menger's Economics of Well-Being: Almost Objectivism and other's attempt to make the Austrian School of Economics, Hayek, and von Mises part of the "Objectivist fold." There are even Christian Objectivists. No kidding!
If just anything, however similar or different from Objectivism as Ayn Rand espoused it, calls itself Objectivism, the word itself ceases to have any meaning. If Objectivism is a major philosophical contribution, and new philosophy is going to begin there, that "place" must be clearly designated. It does not matter if what is different from Objectivism is correct, if it is different, it is not Objectivism. New philosophy, even starting with Ayn Rand's Objectivism, does not need to agree with Objectivism on every point, but if it disagrees and calls itself Objectivism, how can it be known, when someone calls something Objectivism, which version is meant? Philosophers should be extremely careful to insure the meaning of the words they use are clearly defined and understood. There cannot be different versions of Objectivism without confusion.
Objectivism Characterized
So just how do I characterize Objectivism. I characterize it as a mistake—not the content, but the name.
When Ayn Rand was asked what she called her philosophy, she should have looked her questioner in the eye, and stated firmly, "philosophy!" In the same sense that there is only chemistry, or biology, or physics, there is only philosophy. While we speak of Newtonian physics, and associate relativity and quantum mechanics with Einstein, these only designate various stages in the development of physics, we do not give special names to those stages.
We might designate the stage of philosophy achieved by Ayn Rand as Randian philosophy, but it is as much a mistake to call that stage Randianism or Objectivism as it would be to call the stage of physics achieved by Newton, Newtonianism.
Objectivism itself should not be promoted, the concepts of Objectivism ought to be. Certainly, when those concepts are discussed, when they are specifically those which Ayn Rand originated or defined, her authorship must be acknowledged.
Promote Ayn Rand for her twin accomplishments: as one of the greatest authors of fiction and one of the most important contributors to the field of philosophy in history. Promote the concepts of her philosophy as correct principles in that field. In what name should those concepts be promoted? In the name of what they are, philosophy.