• entries
  • comments
  • views

Biddle and Hicks Debate Open versus Closed Objectivism

Neil Parille


The debate between Craig Biddle and Stephen Hicks concerning Open versus Close Objectivism took place last month in Belgrade, Serbia.  Biddle took the Closed position and Hicks the Open position.  I enjoyed the debate and thought each side presented his position well.  There wasn’t the rancor that one might expect for what has often been a contentious issue.  For background on the Open versus Closed controversy see here.

Biddle took a reasonable approach.  Ayn Rand died in 1982 and the positions she set forth in her books and essays constitutes Objectivism.  He conceded that there are philosophical topics that Rand didn’t discuss – such as propositions and the problem of induction – but what she did discuss constitutes Objectivism. Any extension of Objectivism outside of this is not part of Objectivism no matter how consistent it might be with Objectivism.  He also said that if Objectivism were open, then one would never know what precisely Objectivism is.  Is it Rand’s Objectivism plus Peikoff’s extensions or Objectivism plus Hicks’ extensions?

Biddle, however, went on say that there were aspects of Rand’s thought that are incidental and shouldn’t be considered Objectivism, such as her opposition to homosexuality and a woman president.  He even said that these positions are in effect contrary to Objectivism because a consistent application of Objectivism would lead to the opposite conclusions.  This assumes that there are essential and non-essential parts to Objectivism.*  Rand never said this, much less provided guidance on how one separates the essential from the non-essential.  Consider taxation, which Rand considered immoral.  Ideally, government should be funded by voluntary contributions.  Is this incidental to Objectivism?  One could make an Objectivist argument for taxation.  Contrary to anarcho-capitalism, for Rand government is necessary.  If government is necessary then shouldn’t it insist that citizens provide support via taxation (which in Rand’s view would be small)?*

Hicks compared Objectivism to a science, giving the example of Newtonian physics.  Hicks said one could still call himself a Newtonian post Einstein because Einstein’s physics is at most a modification of Newton’s physics.  He said one should look at Objectivism as a method for discovering philosophical truth.  He asked whether some of Rand’s ideas might need to be revised in light of later science.  He gave the example of Rand’s theory of concept formation which is potentially subject to revision because of recent findings in neuroscience.  Rand, however, seemed to look at philosophy as in effect the master science.  Taken to an extreme, this implies one can’t properly understand contemporary findings in science outside the interpretive lens of Objectivism.***  Hicks conceded that there is a core to Objectivism and one can only go so far in rejecting this or that teaching of Objectivism and still consider oneself an Objectivist.  Unfortunately, the debate format – lengthy presentations from each side – didn’t allow for much back and forth on this question, which seems to be the essence of the controversy.

I’ll close with a few comments:

1.            One factor not discussed is that Rand died in 1982.  Not only that, but some of her most important members of the “Second Collective” are still alive such as Leonard Peikoff (Rand’s self-identified “intellectual heir”), Harry Binswanger and Peter “Don’t let the door hit you in the back” Schwartz.  If Rand had died in 1882, the question of Open versus Closed Objectivism would probably be discussed no more than Kant’s contemporary followers discuss whether his system is open or closed.

2.            The Ayn Rand Institute – which has the support of Peikoff and which will inherit the rights to her books – is well-funded.  The ARI has staked out a claim that it is the expert on Rand’s thought and its contemporary application.  Not surprisingly, the ARI is the leading advocate of the Closed position.  (However, the ARI has no problem claiming that Rand would have despised Donald Trump or serially rewriting Rand’s posthumously published material.)  In fairness to Biddle, he is not on good terms with the ARI so no one should question his sincerity.

3.            I don’t know what Rand would have thought about this; however she was rather zealous in guarding her thought.  As Nathaniel Branden wrote pre-split, “In the future, when Objectivism has become an intellectual and cultural movement on a wider scale, when a variety of authors have written books dealing with some aspect of the Objectivist philosophy – it could be appropriate for those in agreement to describe themselves as ‘Objectivists.’ However, at present, when the name is so intimately associated with Rand and me, it is not. At present, a person who is in agreement with our philosophy should describe himself, not as an Objectivist, but as a student or supporter of Objectivism.”


*I am indebted to Scott Schiff for this and other insights.

**Rand seemed to concede as much.  In “Government Financing in a Free Society,” she suggested that the state could impose a “voluntary” surcharge on contracts which parties would not be forced to pay.  However, if they didn’t pay, the government would not enforce the contract.  This sounds as voluntary as paying the Mafia protection money.

***Hence the perhaps apocryphal statement attributed to Peikoff: “Philosophy has a veto over physics.”  Note that Peikoff opposes Big Bang cosmology because it was first developed by a Catholic priest and has, at least to some, theistic implications.


Recommended Comments

Shifting perspective on this, from a certain view everything about this seems beneath a reality based philosophy, and people of action who hold it.


I cannot imagine the heroes of Rand's books having a serious inquiry into what to call what they believe, or what to call people who hold those beliefs, and just when and where a belief or a person should be called something different.


On the one hand one might say that it's akin to categorization, conceptualization, genus and differentia and all that sort of thing.... it's just what philosophers do from time to time.

But the protagonists of Rand, as most human beings, would not have bothered with the labelling, affiliation, or marketing, of their ideas or any kind of "ownership" or "membership" worries... after all people of action are not metaphysically vulnerable to those types of qualms... who or what is in or outside of some club.  There is only noncontradictory identification and action.


We have the smell here of a sort of collectivism and a flavor of tribalism of ideas, which tribe does this idea belong to (as if ideas AS SUCH had owners) and which tribe are you a part of, publically affiliated with, and defined by?


I get the impression Biddle has it right, and that in his mind he affords this the level of importance and significance it deserves...

but feels he has to talk about it.


Link to comment

This issue is so easy to resolve, the fact that people in O-Land still debate it shows that the issue is not the issue at all.

Most everyone attracted to Objectivism is intelligent. So all of them have the capacity to understand that when you open a dictionary, any dictionary, almost all of the words in it have more than one definition.

I don't think anyone is unclear on the two different concepts of Objectivism, one being limited to what Rand wrote and another using it as a foundation for further thought.

So the debate is not over understanding.

The debate is over power and approval.


To illustrate, take any word with two meanings. And we don't have to go far. Let's do the word "object."


And let's do a little story.

One day one group of people got to thinking "object" meant a visible and tangible thing and only a visible and tangible thing. No exceptions. Another group came along and got to thinking that "object" meant argue in disagreement. The first took on the name Nouner and the second Verber to identify themselves.

The Nouners began to say that people who used "object" as a verb did not have the right to do that. That they could choose any other word they wanted to and go off into any irrational silliness they liked. But not with the word "object."

The Verbers wanted approval from the Nouners, but they refused to give up the word "object." And they kept trying to show the Nouners that maybe if they thought of it this way or that way, they would change their minds. But the Nouners would have none of it. They began to say that it was evil to associate with Verbers.

Over time, the Nouners and Verbers got into nasty fights. But people on the outside could not help but notice that the fights were never over the concept. Both sides understood the two concepts just fine. The fight was always over who got the right to use the word "object."

To make matters worse, one day someone invented a dictionary and printed both meanings in it for the word "object." The Nouners had a fit and dug in even harder, calling the world evil and saying we were all perishing in an orgy of irrationalism. The Verbers, instead of leaving well enough alone and letting the dust settle, proudly said they were right, but they kept seeking approval from the Nouners in a battered-wife syndrome manner. 

Then one day, something even worse happened.

The word "objectivism" came into being.



  • Like 1
  • Smile 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now