Open vs. Closed system

[Mike Renzulli]

Okay, I have read alot on the internet about the dispute between David Kelley and Leonard Piekoff with regards to which of the 2 men's interpretations regarding Objectivism is correct.

While I side with Kelley, I would like to get more information about where he is coming from. Specifically, does Kelley call for changing the philosophy itself or does he and others in this side of the movement state we should keep the core principles but the other aspects of the philosophy be modified here and there to keep up with reality?

Someone please briefly summarize where Piekoff and Kelley are coming from.

I am getting the impression that Kelley isn't calling for the changing of anything regarding Objectivism. However, he had no problem interacting with Libertarians (that Piekoff and ARI prohibit) or anyone like-minded.

Please clarify.

Its very interesting that the Kelley-Piekoff split happened since it reminds me of what happened during the Reformation when you had dissenters in the church openly disagree with and question the Pope and the Catholic Church hierarchy.

I could not help but notice the similarities being that I have a large background in religion.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Mike Renzulli

[Greybird]

To me, the problem goes back to the beginning, Rand's first statement on the subject, in the preface to For the New Intellectual, which concludes: "The name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism."

I've contended for years that she had no epistemological credibility in choosing such a "name." Mainly because the referent — "a philosophy" as a conceptual entity — has too many weaknesses as a construct to actually exist. It creates far too many levels of concepts-upon-concepts for it to work coherently.

Finding and proclaiming a label such as "Objectivism" ends up reifying her work into an entity, whether or not it actually exists. That's an ancient human foible. To create any "-ism" does so. It's rhetorically convenient, but nearly empty of content, because the ideas it subsumes aren't easily integrated — and few either attempt to do so or, sad to say, want to do so.

Even Rand couldn't do it. Just the subject of, say, ethics has so many topics and issues as to require a lifetime, or several lifetimes, to even attempt to systematize it. Rand classified her insights as to subject matter, provided links among several areas, gave leads to logical connections.

Yet all that — except for her theory of universals, in some respects — does not create systematized coherence. Not on the level that makes any notion of "a philosophy" have any sense.

The Peikoff-vs.-Kelley or open-vs.-closed meta-battles are mis-aimed, as most such battles are. Kelley has a handle on the truth by saying that "Objectivism" is an "open system." It is, most assuredly, open, as well-framed concepts or principles can't be hemmed in as to how they're applied.

But there's no "system." Not because Rand proclaimed it to be one. She never made it one herself. It's only after decades that some are fleshing out enough of facets of her ideas to come within a few levels of seriously calling it one.

Peikoff, though, also has a handle on the truth, if "Objectivism" is reduced in scope to the only form that makes sense: what Ayn Rand saw as being true. That would, indeed, be closed. It's a matter of what she wrote and spoke about. (Since the original referent, what was inside her head, no longer exists.)

Peikoff, though (as with Rand) wants a supposed system of "what Rand saw as being true" — with a convenient label — to be seen as a universally applicable system of philosophy. He wants her proprietary stamp to be retained on open-ended principles. That never happened in Rand's lifetime, and it never will.

... This condenses what I've outlined at greater length on Atlantis I/II and elsewhere, and I still plan to, well, systematize it and put it on line here.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Greybird

[Ellen Stuttle]

Steve,

I think your analysis is straight on target. Kudos. I've copied it to save for easy reference.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

If Rand hadn't been Rand we'd not be talking about anything now, would we?

--Brant

To me, the problem goes back to the beginning, Rand's first statement on the subject, in the preface to For the New Intellectual, which concludes: "The name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism."

I've contended for years that she had no epistemological credibility in choosing such a "name." Mainly because the referent — "a philosophy" as a conceptual entity — has too many weaknesses as a construct to actually exist. It creates far too many levels of concepts-upon-concepts for it to work coherently.

Finding and proclaiming a label such as "Objectivism" ends up reifying her work into an entity, whether or not it actually exists. That's an ancient human foible. To create any "-ism" does so. It's rhetorically convenient, but nearly empty of content, because the ideas it subsumes aren't easily integrated — and few either attempt to do so or, sad to say, want to do so.

Even Rand couldn't do it. Just the subject of, say, ethics has so many topics and issues as to require a lifetime, or several lifetimes, to even attempt to systematize it. Rand classified her insights as to subject matter, provided links among several areas, gave leads to logical connections.

Yet all that — except for her theory of universals, in some respects — does not create systematized coherence. Not on the level that makes any notion of "a philosophy" have any sense.

The Peikoff-vs.-Kelley or open-vs.-closed meta-battles are mis-aimed, as most such battles are. Kelley has a handle on the truth by saying that "Objectivism" is an "open system." It is, most assuredly, open, as well-framed concepts or principles can't be hemmed in as to how they're applied.

But there's no "system." Not because Rand proclaimed it to be one. She never made it one herself. It's only after decades that some are fleshing out enough of facets of her ideas to come within a few levels of seriously calling it one.

Peikoff, though, also has a handle on the truth, if "Objectivism" is reduced in scope to the only form that makes sense: what Ayn Rand saw as being true. That would, indeed, be closed. It's a matter of what she wrote and spoke about. (Since the original referent, what was inside her head, no longer exists.)

Peikoff, though (as with Rand) wants a supposed system of "what Rand saw as being true" — with a convenient label — to be seen as a universally applicable system of philosophy. He wants her proprietary stamp to be retained on open-ended principles. That never happened in Rand's lifetime, and it never will.

... This condenses what I've outlined at greater length on Atlantis I/II and elsewhere, and I still plan to, well, systematize it and put it on line here.

[Mike Hardy]

Its very interesting that the Kelley-Piekoff split happened since it reminds me of what happened during the Reformation when you had dissenters in the church openly disagree with and question the Pope and the Catholic Church hierarchy.

I could not help but notice the similarities being that I have a large background in religion.

It's been a frequently repeated cliche since the '80s to say the Kelley-Peikoff split is like the Protestant Reformation. -- Mike Hardy

[sjw]

Okay, I have read alot on the internet about the dispute between David Kelley and Leonard Piekoff with regards to which of the 2 men's interpretations regarding Objectivism is correct.

It's not important whether something is or isn't consistent with Objectivism. It's important whether it's consistent with reality. It's important to read and understand what Rand thought because she was a great thinker--to a great degree she properly identified reality. It's important to give her the credit she is due. It is not important whether or not she or her self-proclaimed followers would knight thee an Objectivist. Her obsession about whether somebody is or isn't a "true Objectivist" was a mistake on her part.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

A gentle correction since you are repeating the error. It is not "Piekoff." It is "Peikoff."

I made that mistake several times in the beginning before I got it right.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Mike,

A gentle correction since you are repeating the error. It is not "Piekoff." It is "Peikoff."

I made that mistake several times in the beginning before I got it right.

Michael

"You get no pie with Peikoff."

Makes no sense, but ensures that I always remember the spelling.

Alfonso

Edited April 24, 2008 by Alfonso

[Selene]

Steve,

I think your analysis is straight on target. Kudos. I've copied it to save for easy reference.

Ellen

___

It comes as close to being why I left the NBI implosion. Ayn opened up a potential philosophy that made "sense" to me. I thought it was a broad great start. Your points about ethics are spot on in my non-currently-being-Objectivist status [this is a disclaimer for Shayne] just in case.

Nice post.

Adam

[Mike Renzulli]

Good point, Shayne, and I completely agree. Since Objectivism is based on reality only reality can control it.

If my memory serves, when Buddha was going around spreading his philosophy, he told his followers that he did not want to be made into a messiah/god. Unfortunately, after he passed away, thats what a group of Buddhists did.

Similar things happened with the messiahs of Christianity (Jesus) and Islam (Mohammed).

Now, I see a similar thing happening with the Objectivist movement. One side just wants to practice her philosophy while the other has made her philosophy into a religion and, essentially, wants to deify Ayn Rand.

I hope our side of the movement doesn't wither and die like the Buddhists who only practiced Buddha's philosophy were (for lack of a better term) beaten by the ones who deified Buddha.

I apologize if my above statement is a bit simplistic.

Okay, I have read alot on the internet about the dispute between David Kelley and Leonard Piekoff with regards to which of the 2 men's interpretations regarding Objectivism is correct.

It's not important whether something is or isn't consistent with Objectivism. It's important whether it's consistent with reality. It's important to read and understand what Rand thought because she was a great thinker--to a great degree she properly identified reality. It's important to give her the credit she is due. It is not important whether or not she or her self-proclaimed followers would knight thee an Objectivist. Her obsession about whether somebody is or isn't a "true Objectivist" was a mistake on her part.

Shayne

Edited April 27, 2008 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

Yes indeed thanks! For some reason, I haven't gotten the spelling of his name right (yet).

Mike,

A gentle correction since you are repeating the error. It is not "Piekoff." It is "Peikoff."

I made that mistake several times in the beginning before I got it right.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

To me, the problem goes back to the beginning, Rand's first statement on the subject, in the preface to For the New Intellectual, which concludes: "The name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism."

Steve,

Excellent analysis!

I've just discovered it now, as I try to do some catching up.

Robert Campbell

[Mike Renzulli]

Indeed Steve's analysis was very informative. I would, however, point out something that Ayn Rand said that is found at Wikipedia:

In answer to whether Objectivism is a philosophic system open to change, interpretation and alteration, Ayn Rand herself once said, "There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone (or their philosophy) with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods?"

Is the quote from Wikipedia accurate and this to imply that she said her system is closed?

I am venturing to say no because we give appropriate credit to Ayn Rand and it does not seem that TAS or Objectivists in our camp stray away from the philosophy, if not the core of Objectivism itself. Much of what our side of the movement espouses seems to be based more on interpretation.

To me, the problem goes back to the beginning, Rand's first statement on the subject, in the preface to For the New Intellectual, which concludes: "The name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism."

Steve,

Excellent analysis!

I've just discovered it now, as I try to do some catching up.

Robert Campbell

Edited May 9, 2008 by Mike Renzulli

[Barbara Branden]

Steve: "This condenses what I've outlined at greater length on Atlantis I/II and elsewhere, and I still plan to, well, systematize it and put it on line here."

Please do. I'd like to read it. Can you refer us to your earler statements?

Barbara

[Greybird]

Thanks for the comments, and I'm glad that my points above are being found to be clear and helpful.

I plan to write an OL-style "article" in more detail, but as Barbara requested, this post of mine to the Atlantis (I) list back on 7 January 2000 has a different tack of my reasoning and addresses a specific example. (Yes, for those who don't know, the same Jimbo Wales who started Wikipedia was once on that mailing list.)

§ § §

Jimbo Wales wrote:

> [...] no matter what anyone may say about it, Objectivism and anarchy are incompatible.

> If I ever find that some fundamental aspect of Objectivism is wrong, then I will stop calling

> myself an Objectivist. It would be foolish to value a label more highly than the truth.

We have the same go-round here that happened long ago on HPO [an Objectivist newsgroup on Usenet]. At the risk of eliciting a collective groan <g> ... what is "Objectivism," anyway? What is this label's referent?

And more to the point: Does it really have a referent?

I've long contended that Rand made a fundamental mistake in saying, in print, "The name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism." (Preface to FNI, 1960.) This statement makes many assumptions, all of which need to be properly demonstrated:

~ That "(a) philosophy" is a valid concept of consciousness, so clearly demarked from other such concepts that it is coherent. At the level of abstraction that Rand used, I've never seen it properly distinguished in this way. Not without the conceptual common denominator being almost any set of beliefs, reasoned ideas, or passions that one would care to agglomerate. Rand almost openly used the latter meaning — see her West Point speech [reprinted in Philosophy: Who Needs It].

~ That choosing a proper name ending in "-ism" is not, in itself, an anti-concept. Rand herself implicitly argued that it was, years later, in her essay "Extremism, or the Art of Smearing" (CUI). Her point was that tacking on "-ism" obliterates distinctions by erecting a Potemkin-village shell of a coherent viewpoint, when it does not exist. She was right. She should have looked, however, closer to home. The existence of any "-ism" has to be demonstrated as being proper.

~ That choosing any proper name denoting "Ayn Rand's systematized viewpoints" is not redundant, when, as she stressed, anyone using "Objectivism" without her authorization was deemed guilty of "putting thoughts into my head" ("To Whom It May Concern").

To reduce further: "Objectivism" may be compact, but such a term was not necessary, made use of an anti-concept, and had a conceptual referent that is itself undefined and incoherent.

"Randian thought" or, to use Chris Sciabarra's less elegant (but far more accurate) phrase and journal title, "Rand studies" is what would have been more valid as a monicker. Yet Rand herself rejected such a label.

"Objectivism" made these ideas appear to be facts-of-reality and Ayn-Rand's-reasoning at the same time. They often are both, but these are distinct categories, and this name-without-her-name fudged the distinction.

What "Objectivism" ended up doing was reifying Rand's reasoning, in practice, into a conceptual "entity" Out There that never had, to me, any epistemological right to exist. Not until the three distinctions that I highlight above were fully answered. Almost no one has addressed them in the 45 years since Rand wrote Galt's Speech, not the Brandens, not Peikoff, not Kelley (except in "Truth and Toleration," to some extent), nobody.

> It doesn't matter whether or not anarchy is true. [...] Objectivism has a definite stand on

> this fundamental issue (the nature of government), and if you don't agree with that, then you

> shouldn't call yourself an Objectivist.

"Objectivism has"? "Agree with that"? There is no "that." There never was. It's "Rand had". It's "agree with her".

Let's call matters by their legitimate names. Using "anarchy" as Rand saw it, as being any system for generating and enforcing legal principles that did not involve a non-unanimous-consent monopoly government:

Yes, Rand herself did not believe "anarchy" was valid. That does not mean that, by the soundest objective reasoning, her more fundamental ethical, etc., principles did not and cannot imply that it is valid. Such validity is a matter for intensive reasoning, deductive and inductive.

Does someone who sees "anarchy" being valid, on the basis of Rand's own deeper principles, depart from her philosophic tendency or outlook? Not necessarily. That is a matter of judgment.

Is a word, a label, useful for describing those who see higher matters on the conceptual tree as flowering in ways different from those of Rand? And who, nonetheless, use her conceptual tools to frame the world? Perhaps.

We humans have an insistence on labels ... an atavistic one, maybe? Going back to the era before conceptual thought began? And we also seem to insist on distinguishing "like me" and "unlike me."

With this insistence on such labels, what is the least objectionable one? To me, it's "Randian," but many disagree. The next best candidate so far, to me, making just enough distance from the contents of Rand's head, but staying tied to her emphases, is the word "Objectivist." Adjective only.

I'd rather not even use "Objectivist." It treads dangerously close to noting a static "philosophy" — not merely philosophic ideas and systematic links — that is, as I wrote above, nonexistent, pernicious, and redundant.

It also ends up, in subtle irony, somewhat ignoring Rand. The particular woman who found such innovations is ignored by such a term. The philosophic effort that is carried on in the wake of her identifications is done apart from any reminder that a particular human being set us on these paths.

Nonetheless, "Objectivist" as adjective has its uses. It remains descriptive, not indicative of a set doctrine or embalmed writings. David Kelley had the right take on this. He saw honest inquiry as not "advancing Objectivism," as the ARI proclaims, but engaging in "Objectivist studies" of the world ... or being the "center" of same.

> Someone used the term "anarcho-Objectivist" and that's not a bad one, in Objectivist/

> libertarian circles anyway, because it suggests the nature of your agreement and

> disagreement with Objectivism.

I disagree. Such hybrids unnecessarily obscure genuine agreement on fundamental points.

I agree with every fundamental of Rand's metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. I see her higher-level political reasoning, leading to a nonunanimous monopoly government, as being flawed — with Roy Childs' original objections never having been answered, much less those of, say, David Friedman.

I agree with Rand's esthetic model, but see many of her conclusions about particular schools, artworks, and artists as having been sadly mistaken.

Does that make me, not "an Objectivist," but "an anarcho-Objectivist" or "a Beethoven-admiring Objectivist"? No. I am Objectivist ... adjective. I work from her fundamental premises. I also agree with much anarchist reasoning. I also adore the Ninth Symphony's setting of the "Ode to Joy."

Saying that I am "an Objectivist" reifies my views, into an entity that somewhat matches Rand's views, and — in any case — doesn't exist. It's why I avoid the term apart from strict adjective usage, and rarely even then.

> Outside that context, it just sounds weird. "Libertarian" is probably a more useful

> catchall phrase.

"Libertarian" has a particular meaning, Jimbo, simply a broader one in the political realm than "Objectivist." I am libertarian. Adjective. I am also, to use a specific referent, a member of the Libertarian Party.

> [...] we can't "correct Objectivism" — it is too late for that, the concept is already defined,

> in use, and with a specific meaning.

I have to side with those who contend that this is a proper name, not a concept. That choice by Rand does not mean, however, that it ever was a conceptually legitimate proper name. A proper name needs a referent. It needs to make an objectively required distinction. It needs to not be redundant. "Objectivism" fails on all three counts, and always has.

We can't toss the word out, not entirely, but we can take Kelley's lead and minimize its reifying mischief ... by sticking solely to the adjective.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Greybird

[Brant Gaede]

Steve,

Thanks for putting this up. It reminds me how much was lost with the original Atlantis.

I like the clarification of Objectivism as a proper noun (as opposed to objectivism--whatever that might be).

Objectivism is thus anything Ayn Rand said it was so anyone saying Objectivism was x, y or z was putting thoughts into her head at least to the extent that they and that would require her vetting. Of course it wasn't this simple, but what a burden she carried to keep people out of her head! No wonder she could be so cross and short at times.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Steve,

Thank you for posting your material from Atlantis. And I look forward to your essay on the same topic.

By calling her ideas "Objectivism," Rand helped to create the impression of completeness and noncontradictory integration where she had not always achieved either one. She might admit, in a published aside, that she hadn't worked out a philosophy of law, or, in one not published till after her death, that she had no philosophy of science, but neither prevented her from expecting complete agreement with the allegedly finished system.

In the research I did for my forthcoming article on the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion, I became convinced that there was no fully worked-out Rand-thought concerning arbitrary assertions. Otherwise, why wouldn't she have enunciated the doctrine somewhere in the articles that she published?

Instead, it appears she left the working out of the doctrine to others: first to Nathaniel Branden, then to Leonard Peikoff.

Rand endorsed both Dr. Branden's 1963 published formulation of the doctrine and Dr. Peikoff's 1976 formulation in lecture. The two formulations disagree on some key points. Both have problems, in my opinion, but the Peikovian formulation is far worse, tangling around itself like a rat's nest.

If Ayn Rand really agreed with every aspect of Leonard Peikoff's 1976 presentation, her thinking on the subject was as confused as his appears to be.

If she did not, then she was allowing one of her disciples to put the "Objectivist" brand on notions of his own devising.

When I called the Kelley/Thomas understanding of Objectivism "Peikovian," what I meant is that the portions of the Objectivist epistemology that Ayn Rand never developed in print but that Dr. Peikoff wrote or lectured about are taken by David Kelley and Will Thomas to be as Peikoff presented them. The same applies to matters of interpretation where Rand's writings could be understood in more than one way but Dr. Peikoff insists on a particular reading; the "premoral choice to live" is a prominent example here.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Mike R,

Ayn Rand did, in fact, say

There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone (or their philosophy) with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods?

It comes from the question and answer period following her 1971 Ford Hall Forum talk, and is now included in Ayn Rand Answers.

(By the way, it is part of a blast at people who call themselves Objectivists but do not believe in moral perfection. I doubt that this was a coincidence.)

In her preface to the first issue of The Objectivist Forum, in 1980, Ayn Rand restated her demand. But now the alternative was "flights of fancy" instead of "contradictions" (the former is not an improvement over the latter, from Rand's point of view).

The "closed system" advocates love these quotations, as you might imagine.

There are three obstacles that they consequently run smack into:

(1) On other occasions, Rand envisioned significant developments in Objectivism continuing in future generations--which could never happen were the system truly closed.

(2) Rand was demanding adherence to an allegedly closed system when the system was (i) of uncertain extent; (ii) seriously incomplete; and (iii) not always internally consistent.

The ARIans deal with the uncertain extent problem by taking certain views that embarrass them (Rand's insistence that no psychologically healthy woman could be President of the United States; her moral condemnation of homosexuality) and redefining them as "non-philosophical." I am sure that the roll of "non-philosophical" beliefs will grow in future years.

They deal with the incompleteness problem by pretending that the incompleteness isn't there, or that it doesn't matter, or that Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman are fixing it (but then their contributions will never count as "Objectivism"), or that Dr. Peikoff has been granted temporary authority to Hex the Pentateuch, or that the completions are "Objectivist philosophy" though not "Objectivism" or... stay tuned.

They deal with the internal consistency problem by anathematizing anyone who raises it.

(3) If Objectivism is truly a closed system that must be accepted or rejected in toto, it stopped growing when Ayn Rand died. And it must be dead, in its turn, because a single false "philosophical" proposition in the Randian corpus gives Randians the choice between deliberately accepting a system that includes falsehoods, or hitting the road out of Rand-land. Rand's belief that newborn infants experience pure sensations has turned out to be false; she enunciated it as part of her epistemology; therefore, the whole "system" is already dead.

Needless to say, this last line of reasoning doesn't play well in Irvine.

Robert Campbell

[Mike Renzulli]

Thanks for clarifying, Robert. This does explain the open vs. closed system debate alot better for me.

In terms of the open system, while the core principles of Objectivism should remain unchanged, the other fundamentals could be subject to change or revision. For example, on Wikipedia there is an article (link below) pointing out that after Ayn Rand died and after stating he disagreed with her on the subject, Leonard Piekoff changed or revised Objectivism's official stance on homosexuality.

I am not saying this to be facetious towards Piekoff (despite the fact that I loathe some of the things he has done). But to point out that there are times that even that even ARI folks have changed some semblances of the philosophy. I would not be surprised if it was due to them coming to the same conclusions as you point out in last paragraph of your statement, though they will not openly say it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism,_...d_homosexuality

Mike R,

Ayn Rand did, in fact, say

There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone (or their philosophy) with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods?

It comes from the question and answer period following her 1971 Ford Hall Forum talk, and is now included in Ayn Rand Answers.

(By the way, it is part of a blast at people who call themselves Objectivists but do not believe in moral perfection. I doubt that this was a coincidence.)

In her preface to the first issue of The Objectivist Forum, in 1980, Ayn Rand restated her demand. But now the alternative was "flights of fancy" instead of "contradictions" (the former is not an improvement over the latter, from Rand's point of view).

The "closed system" advocates love these quotations, as you might imagine.

There are three obstacles that they consequently run smack into:

(1) On other occasions, Rand envisioned significant developments in Objectivism continuing in future generations--which could never happen were the system truly closed.

(2) Rand was demanding adherence to an allegedly closed system when the system was (i) of uncertain extent; (ii) seriously incomplete; and (iii) not always internally consistent.

The ARIans deal with the uncertain extent problem by taking certain views that embarrass them (Rand's insistence that no psychologically healthy woman could be President of the United States; her moral condemnation of homosexuality) and redefining them as "non-philosophical." I am sure that the roll of "non-philosophical" beliefs will grow in future years.

They deal with the incompleteness problem by pretending that the incompleteness isn't there, or that it doesn't matter, or that Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman are fixing it (but then their contributions will never count as "Objectivism"), or that Dr. Peikoff has been granted temporary authority to Hex the Pentateuch, or that the completions are "Objectivist philosophy" though not "Objectivism" or... stay tuned.

They deal with the internal consistency problem by anathematizing anyone who raises it.

(3) If Objectivism is truly a closed system that must be accepted or rejected in toto, it stopped growing when Ayn Rand died. And it must be dead, in its turn, because a single false "philosophical" proposition in the Randian corpus gives Randians the choice between deliberately accepting a system that includes falsehoods, or hitting the road out of Rand-land. Rand's belief that newborn infants experience pure sensations has turned out to be false; she enunciated it as part of her epistemology; therefore, the whole "system" is already dead.

Needless to say, this last line of reasoning doesn't play well in Irvine.

Robert Campbell

Edited June 4, 2008 by Mike Renzulli

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for the comments, and I'm glad that my points above are being found to be clear and helpful.

I plan to write an OL-style "article" in more detail, but as Barbara requested, this post of mine to the Atlantis (I) list back on 7 January 2000 has a different tack of my reasoning and addresses a specific example. (Yes, for those who don't know, the same Jimbo Wales who started Wikipedia was once on that mailing list.)

§ § §

Jimbo Wales wrote:

> [...] no matter what anyone may say about it, Objectivism and anarchy are incompatible.

> If I ever find that some fundamental aspect of Objectivism is wrong, then I will stop calling

> myself an Objectivist. It would be foolish to value a label more highly than the truth.

We have the same go-round here that happened long ago on HPO [an Objectivist newsgroup on Usenet]. At the risk of eliciting a collective groan <g> ... what is "Objectivism," anyway? What is this label's referent?

And more to the point: Does it really have a referent?

I've long contended that Rand made a fundamental mistake in saying, in print, "The name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism." (Preface to FNI, 1960.) This statement makes many assumptions, all of which need to be properly demonstrated:

~ That "(a) philosophy" is a valid concept of consciousness, so clearly demarked from other such concepts that it is coherent. At the level of abstraction that Rand used, I've never seen it properly distinguished in this way. Not without the conceptual common denominator being almost any set of beliefs, reasoned ideas, or passions that one would care to agglomerate. Rand almost openly used the latter meaning — see her West Point speech [reprinted in Philosophy: Who Needs It].

~ That choosing a proper name ending in "-ism" is not, in itself, an anti-concept. Rand herself implicitly argued that it was, years later, in her essay "Extremism, or the Art of Smearing" (CUI). Her point was that tacking on "-ism" obliterates distinctions by erecting a Potemkin-village shell of a coherent viewpoint, when it does not exist. She was right. She should have looked, however, closer to home. The existence of any "-ism" has to be demonstrated as being proper.

~ That choosing any proper name denoting "Ayn Rand's systematized viewpoints" is not redundant, when, as she stressed, anyone using "Objectivism" without her authorization was deemed guilty of "putting thoughts into my head" ("To Whom It May Concern").

To reduce further: "Objectivism" may be compact, but such a term was not necessary, made use of an anti-concept, and had a conceptual referent that is itself undefined and incoherent.

"Randian thought" or, to use Chris Sciabarra's less elegant (but far more accurate) phrase and journal title, "Rand studies" is what would have been more valid as a monicker. Yet Rand herself rejected such a label.

"Objectivism" made these ideas appear to be facts-of-reality and Ayn-Rand's-reasoning at the same time. They often are both, but these are distinct categories, and this name-without-her-name fudged the distinction.

What "Objectivism" ended up doing was reifying Rand's reasoning, in practice, into a conceptual "entity" Out There that never had, to me, any epistemological right to exist. Not until the three distinctions that I highlight above were fully answered. Almost no one has addressed them in the 45 years since Rand wrote Galt's Speech, not the Brandens, not Peikoff, not Kelley (except in "Truth and Toleration," to some extent), nobody.

> It doesn't matter whether or not anarchy is true. [...] Objectivism has a definite stand on

> this fundamental issue (the nature of government), and if you don't agree with that, then you

> shouldn't call yourself an Objectivist.

"Objectivism has"? "Agree with that"? There is no "that." There never was. It's "Rand had". It's "agree with her".

Let's call matters by their legitimate names. Using "anarchy" as Rand saw it, as being any system for generating and enforcing legal principles that did not involve a non-unanimous-consent monopoly government:

Yes, Rand herself did not believe "anarchy" was valid. That does not mean that, by the soundest objective reasoning, her more fundamental ethical, etc., principles did not and cannot imply that it is valid. Such validity is a matter for intensive reasoning, deductive and inductive.

Does someone who sees "anarchy" being valid, on the basis of Rand's own deeper principles, depart from her philosophic tendency or outlook? Not necessarily. That is a matter of judgment.

Is a word, a label, useful for describing those who see higher matters on the conceptual tree as flowering in ways different from those of Rand? And who, nonetheless, use her conceptual tools to frame the world? Perhaps.

We humans have an insistence on labels ... an atavistic one, maybe? Going back to the era before conceptual thought began? And we also seem to insist on distinguishing "like me" and "unlike me."

With this insistence on such labels, what is the least objectionable one? To me, it's "Randian," but many disagree. The next best candidate so far, to me, making just enough distance from the contents of Rand's head, but staying tied to her emphases, is the word "Objectivist." Adjective only.

I'd rather not even use "Objectivist." It treads dangerously close to noting a static "philosophy" — not merely philosophic ideas and systematic links — that is, as I wrote above, nonexistent, pernicious, and redundant.

It also ends up, in subtle irony, somewhat ignoring Rand. The particular woman who found such innovations is ignored by such a term. The philosophic effort that is carried on in the wake of her identifications is done apart from any reminder that a particular human being set us on these paths.

Nonetheless, "Objectivist" as adjective has its uses. It remains descriptive, not indicative of a set doctrine or embalmed writings. David Kelley had the right take on this. He saw honest inquiry as not "advancing Objectivism," as the ARI proclaims, but engaging in "Objectivist studies" of the world ... or being the "center" of same.

> Someone used the term "anarcho-Objectivist" and that's not a bad one, in Objectivist/

> libertarian circles anyway, because it suggests the nature of your agreement and

> disagreement with Objectivism.

I disagree. Such hybrids unnecessarily obscure genuine agreement on fundamental points.

I agree with every fundamental of Rand's metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. I see her higher-level political reasoning, leading to a nonunanimous monopoly government, as being flawed — with Roy Childs' original objections never having been answered, much less those of, say, David Friedman.

I agree with Rand's esthetic model, but see many of her conclusions about particular schools, artworks, and artists as having been sadly mistaken.

Does that make me, not "an Objectivist," but "an anarcho-Objectivist" or "a Beethoven-admiring Objectivist"? No. I am Objectivist ... adjective. I work from her fundamental premises. I also agree with much anarchist reasoning. I also adore the Ninth Symphony's setting of the "Ode to Joy."

Saying that I am "an Objectivist" reifies my views, into an entity that somewhat matches Rand's views, and — in any case — doesn't exist. It's why I avoid the term apart from strict adjective usage, and rarely even then.

> Outside that context, it just sounds weird. "Libertarian" is probably a more useful

> catchall phrase.

"Libertarian" has a particular meaning, Jimbo, simply a broader one in the political realm than "Objectivist." I am libertarian. Adjective. I am also, to use a specific referent, a member of the Libertarian Party.

> [...] we can't "correct Objectivism" — it is too late for that, the concept is already defined,

> in use, and with a specific meaning.

I have to side with those who contend that this is a proper name, not a concept. That choice by Rand does not mean, however, that it ever was a conceptually legitimate proper name. A proper name needs a referent. It needs to make an objectively required distinction. It needs to not be redundant. "Objectivism" fails on all three counts, and always has.

We can't toss the word out, not entirely, but we can take Kelley's lead and minimize its reifying mischief ... by sticking solely to the adjective.

I was going to comment on one or two items here, but WTF, this old thread is too interesting not to be revived.

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

Both Peikoff and Kelley agree that the original split was based upon disagreements with each other about the nature of objectivity; i.e. there is a genuine intellectual disagreement between both sides.

Hseih accuses Kelley of, basically, wanting to craft a statement of Objectivism that is 'academically acceptable.' I believe this accusation is correct, but I don't consider it a crime.

Too many Objectivists think that all universities are evil and corrupt and immoral places where the Statists conspire to destroy freedom. I happen to disagree; sure, its fair to say most intellectuals are statists/collectivists of some sort, but a substantial minority are not.

From what I see, a WHOLE bunch of interrelated issues are present in the Open vs. Closed system debate.

1) Whether or not if Ayn Rand made mistakes or she didn't.

2) Whether or not, assuming Rand made mistakes, it is Objectivist to correct them.

3) Whether or not Ayn Rand was imperfect or perfect in practicing her own philosophy.

4) Whether Objectivism is a system of ideas defined by a set of essentials (i.e. the traits which differentiate Objectivism from all other philosophical systems) or whether or not it is a proper name for what Ayn Rand said.

5) Ayn Rand's level of "propriety" over the system.

6) Broadly speaking, separation of the philosophy from the philosopher.

Point 3, unfortunately, is a huge one. It is also irrelevant to whether or not the basic system itself is correct, but ever since Barbara opened the can of worms it seems the only issue most people want to discuss (it really is hysterical to see leftists that claim to promote sexual freedom based upon consent to scream "OMG! Ayn f**ked Nathaniel! She's EEEEEVIL!!!!!"). It also bears note how many of these issues are tied up with Rand as a person.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I liked "The Passion of Ayn Rand" and I think Barbara was quite correct in opening that can of worms. I consider the work a sympathetic portrait of a bunch of people led by a woman who, understandably, was embittered by a social world that opposed her. I do not intend to imply any disrespect by my use of colloquialisms. I have my disagreements with Barbara but I consider her to be a good person.

I read Rand's nonfiction before her fiction (like Chris Sciabarra) and as such I was probably saved from becoming a 'true believer.' I disagree with Rand's ideas about gender and sexuality (although, broadly speaking, I do believe that someone's values about morality and someone's beliefs about the nature of sex will influence their sexual choices and tastes and desires (and possibly, to some degree, their gender preference for sexual partners (again, to SOME extent, and indirectly)), aesthetics (although I broadly agree with the idea of art embodying moral concepts, I think there is a hell of a lot more latitude than Rand allowed... for instance, I think art about DISvalues has merit), and whilst I accept her basic political idea (the good society is one based on consent and individual rights) I am somewhat sympathetic to free market anarchism but my practical stance on politics is one of Hayek-style Minarchy.

I also believe a lot of her negative philosophy (critiques of other thinkers) is based on misinterpretations and overly uncharitable interpretations. For instance her critique of Kant is better suited to Kant's philosophical successors (the German Idealists like Fichte, Hegel etc) than Kant himself. She was overly dismissive of British Empiricism, which I consider on many levels a natural ally of Objectivism in spite of some disagreements (after all, Objectivism IS an empiricist philosophy (i.e. one that argues knowledge emerges from experience)). She beat Hayek to pieces AND didn't get that Hayek was attacking RATIONALISM rather than reason per se (I consider this very unfair, considering she's epistemologically closer to Hayek than Mises), although she was MORE than happy to use Hayek's contribution to the Economic Calculation Argument (see Egalitarianism and Inflation) without giving credit to Hayek.

Like Mises she had a 'rationalist temperment.' This is understandable; both of them faced a world which poured scorn on them and their ideas. However, it does pose some obstacles.

I've also learned from many other thinkers besides Rand; Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Schumpeter, Abelard, Locke, and my Evolutionary Economics Professor and thesis advisor Jason Potts (with whom I'm co-writing an article which we'd like to get published in JARS). I'm also capable of recognizing beauty even in certain religious beliefs... I once read an Asatru (Norse Paganism) prayer that was quite beautiful in defending human pride and dignity. I also think Abelard's version of Catholicism is remarkably lacking in misanthropy; if only the Vatican didn't excommunicate him.

I'm a goth, I wear more makeup than my mother and I make and listen to Industrial music. I know that the cultists, and probably Rand herself (on a bad day), would accuse me of having a negative sense of life and damn me to the fires of hell. I don't care.

I'm happy calling myself an Open-System Objectivist or Unorthodox Objectivist. I think the "Open-System" or "Unorthodox" label distinguishes me from the cultists sufficiently. If you consider "Open-System Objectivist" and "Neo-Objectivist" to be synonymous than I'm happy to see myself as that.

But I don't want to surrender the many real benefits of Rand's ideas to the cultists. I don't want them to be the face of Objectivism. They confirm every slanderous attack made by the Rand-haters.

If this makes me a heretic, I don't care. I consider myself an Objectivist because I agree with what I believe to be the essentials of Rand's philosophy and I agree with her fearless defense of individual self-sovereignty and independent thought.

[Xray]

I was going to comment on one or two items here, but WTF, this old thread is too interesting not to be revived.

--Brant

Thanks for digging up this thread, Brant.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Mike R,

Ayn Rand did, in fact, say

There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone (or their philosophy) with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods?

It comes from the question and answer period following her 1971 Ford Hall Forum talk, and is now included in Ayn Rand Answers.

(By the way, it is part of a blast at people who call themselves Objectivists but do not believe in moral perfection. I doubt that this was a coincidence.)

In her preface to the first issue of The Objectivist Forum, in 1980, Ayn Rand restated her demand. But now the alternative was "flights of fancy" instead of "contradictions" (the former is not an improvement over the latter, from Rand's point of view).

The "closed system" advocates love these quotations, as you might imagine.

There are three obstacles that they consequently run smack into:

(1) On other occasions, Rand envisioned significant developments in Objectivism continuing in future generations--which could never happen were the system truly closed.

(2) Rand was demanding adherence to an allegedly closed system when the system was (i) of uncertain extent; (ii) seriously incomplete; and (iii) not always internally consistent.

The ARIans deal with the uncertain extent problem by taking certain views that embarrass them (Rand's insistence that no psychologically healthy woman could be President of the United States; her moral condemnation of homosexuality) and redefining them as "non-philosophical." I am sure that the roll of "non-philosophical" beliefs will grow in future years.

They deal with the incompleteness problem by pretending that the incompleteness isn't there, or that it doesn't matter, or that Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman are fixing it (but then their contributions will never count as "Objectivism"), or that Dr. Peikoff has been granted temporary authority to Hex the Pentateuch, or that the completions are "Objectivist philosophy" though not "Objectivism" or... stay tuned.

They deal with the internal consistency problem by anathematizing anyone who raises it.

(3) If Objectivism is truly a closed system that must be accepted or rejected in toto, it stopped growing when Ayn Rand died. And it must be dead, in its turn, because a single false "philosophical" proposition in the Randian corpus gives Randians the choice between deliberately accepting a system that includes falsehoods, or hitting the road out of Rand-land. Rand's belief that newborn infants experience pure sensations has turned out to be false; she enunciated it as part of her epistemology; therefore, the whole "system" is already dead.

Needless to say, this last line of reasoning doesn't play well in Irvine.

Robert Campbell

Great post by RC.

[Xray]

By calling her ideas "Objectivism," Rand helped to create the impression of completeness and noncontradictory integration where she had not always achieved either one. She might admit, in a published aside, that she hadn't worked out a philosophy of law, or, in one not published till after her death, that she had no philosophy of science, but neither prevented her from expecting complete agreement with the allegedly finished system.

N. Branden's take on the issue is similar to R. Campbell's assessment:

http://nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html

N. Branden:

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, “It’s all or nothing.” Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.

The true believers might respond by saying, “How can you call it dogmatic religion when we can prove every one of Ayn Rand’s propositions?!” My answer to that is, “The hell you can!” Prior to our break, Ayn Rand credited me with understanding her philosophy better than any other person alive—and not merely better, but far better. I know what we were in a position to prove, I know where the gaps are. And so can anyone else—by careful, critical reading. It’s not all that difficult or complicated."

(bolding by Xray)

Hseih accuses Kelley of, basically, wanting to craft a statement of Objectivism that is 'academically acceptable.' I believe this accusation is correct, but I don't consider it a crime.

Studiodekadent,

Could you please give me a link to where D. Hsieh is criticizing Kelley on this. TIA.

I have a question: What exactly do you mean by "I believe this accusation is correct"?

Does it mean that you personally believe Diana Hsieh rightly accused David Kelley of making Objectivism acceptable in academic circles?

Or do you mean to say that seen from from Hsieh's perspective, her accusation of what David Kelley did was 'justified', more in the sense of 'explainable'?

Like e. g. a dogmatic Marxist's harsh reaction to a less dogmatic Marxist would be 'explainable' from the dogmatist's view?

Too many Objectivists think that all universities are evil and corrupt and immoral places where the Statists conspire to destroy freedom. I happen to disagree; sure, its fair to say most intellectuals are statists/collectivists of some sort, but a substantial minority are not.

In statements by Objectivists, personal moral views can sometimes triumph over the rational assessment of an issue, despite rationality being regarded as fundamental to Objectivism.

If a person sees universities as a place where 'evil and corrupt Statists' are at work, this person will unnecessarily shut him/herself off from a vast pool of human knowledge.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Xray

[Neil Parille]

It's been a long time since I've read Kelley's Truth and Toleration. I remember thinking at the time that if I were an Objectivist, I'd want something in between Kelley's view and Peikoff's view. Although at the time I didn't realize that Peikoff would come from on high occasionally and tell people how Objectivism required people to vote or think about putting as mosque in New York City.

-Neil Parille

http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/