Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It is a complete system built up logically from first principles (axioms). Here’s a quick summary, in her own words:
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
- Metaphysics: Objective Reality
- Epistemology: Reason
- Ethics: Self-interest
- Politics: Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”1
Rand described Objectivism as “a philosophy for living on Earth”. It’s a reality-oriented and (for the most part) logically consistent philosophical system.
More Relevant Than Ever
Rand and her philosophy have received tons of bad press ever since the publication of her best-selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Most critics of her philosophy have clearly never read her work at all. Many of them seem to just react reflexively to any mention of capitalism or self-interest.
Today, the dominant trend of the foggy philosophical notions pushed by public schools, universities, and the mainstream media are entirely the opposite of Objectivism. We are constantly bombarded by the messages that reality is non-objective and a mirage, that reason is a limited, “cold”, or even racist way of making sense of the world, and that self-interest is the height of evil, second only to capitalism.
Rand was aware of the radical nature of her philosophy against the dominant trends of unreason and altruism. Everything she foresaw about the decline of America due to these trends has come to pass. The real world is currently mirroring the events of Atlas Shrugged with eerie precision.
This makes Objectivism more relevant and important than ever before. Objectivism provides real answers to all the important questions, both for individuals and for societies.
The Failure of the Ayn Rand Institute
Unfortunately, Objectivism today isn’t in great shape. Its self-appointed “official” representative, the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), is unable to present the philosophy in a compelling and exciting manner in the context of current events and the current state of the world.
Despite receiving substantial support from Dave Rubin, a leading alternate media personality in the intellectual and political space, the ARI has failed to effectively communicate the groundbreaking insights of Objectivism to a wide audience.
To some extent, this is because of a few flaws in Objectivism, which have gone uncorrected and have now become huge cracks between Objectivist doctrine and reality.
Dogmatic Objectivism
The ARI, being the proponents of what I term dogmatic Objectivism, is unable to correct flaws in Objectivism, partly because officially, Objectivism is a closed system. Leonard Peikoff, Rand’s “intellectual heir” wrote:
“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.2
This is fair enough. However, it means that the philosophy’s flaws can’t be corrected under the label of Objectivism. Rand thought that this would be fine, because she believed the fundamentals of Objectivism, as expressed in her work, were sound and self-consistent, and wouldn’t need any corrections.
Unfortunately, this isn’t really the case.
There are a few serious inconsistencies within Objectivism.
As it wouldn’t be appropriate to use the name Objectivism for a corrected version of the philosophy, I’ve decided to name my modified version “Open Objectivism”.
I believe it would also be inappropriate to use a name that does not incorporate the word Objectivism, as Open Objectivism essentially is Objectivism, with only some small but important corrections.
Open Objectivism
Open Objectivism differs from Objectivism mainly in the domain of politics. While Objectivism holds that a limited government is required for a civilized society, Open Objectivism identifies this position as inconsistent with fundamental Objectivist premises.
In addition, Open Objectivism differs from Objectivism on its evaluation of “intellectual property”.
Objectivism holds that intellectual property is a type of property, and that it is proper for a government to enforce intellectual property rights. Open Objectivism identifies intellectual property as a pragmatic social convention, which cannot be enforced by a government without the violation of basic property rights and individual rights.
Nevertheless, Open Objectivism recognizes the value of conventions regarding intellectual artefacts, and proposes mechanisms for their regulation that are consistent with the rest of the philosophy.
These are the main differences between Objectivism and Open Objectivism.
Dogmatism vs Truth
More fundamentally, Open Objectivism is also open to consideration and discussion of its ideas without dogmatic adherence to the official word of Ayn Rand (as interpreted by Leonard Peikoff and the ARI).
The proponents of any philosophical system that is “closed”, as Peikoff asserts that Objectivism is, cannot logically lay claim to true knowledge, for the same reason that determinists cannot.
A proponent of a closed system can only believe what the system permits him to believe, just as a determinist can only believe what he is pre-determined to believe. Neither of them has the free will to determine the truth for himself. Therefore, neither can claim to know the truth.
The openness of Open Objectivism doesn’t imply, however, that it is open to incorporating ideas that contradict self-evident truths identified by Objectivism. The goal is to improve Objectivism by addressing its logical contradictions, not to destroy it by introducing new ones. The core principles of Objectivism are sound. There are only a few errors that need correction.
Dogmatism Undermines Relevance
The ARI has taken a vibrant and penetrating philosophy that holds the anwers to all the big universal questions, as well as to all the predicaments we find ourselves in today, and rendered it dull, lifeless and irrelevant, because its representatives are terrified of thinking or writing anything that isn’t nearly verbatim something that Rand said, and that Peikoff and other ARI officials endorsed.
They are incapable of applying Objectivist ideas consistently in the current context, because the current context is vastly different from that in which Rand lived, and applying ideas in a new context requires the freedom to think new thoughts.
In many cases this is because they just don’t have the intellectual capacity for it. But part of the reason may also be that they fear the minefield of possible excommunication if they dare to take a single step independently, instead of only stepping in Rand’s existing decades-old footprints.
At a time when the world needs a rational philosophy more desperately than ever, dogmatic Objectivism has no relevant commentary and guidance to offer, because it’s too busy living in the past. This is a massive tragedy that Open Objectivism aims to reverse, by providing Objectivist analysis that’s relevant and insightful in the current context.
Correcting Misrepresentations
Finally, there also exists a high level of misrepresentation of Objectivism by the representatives of the ARI. Open Objectivism aims to address and counter these misrepresentations as well.
I believe Open Objectivism is a more consistent philosophy than Objectivism, and corrects some of Objectivism’s significant errors. In future posts, I will write in more detail on the topics where the two systems diverge.
You can then reach your own verdict, after weighing all the relevant evidence, as to whether or not Open Objectivism offers a more consistent philosophical system than Objectivism.