Topic: Education
The Atlas Society and 'Open Objectivism' : A wrong choice of words. Dr. David Kelley and the Board of The Atlas Society announced that the 'east coast objectivists' would re-organize themselves under the term 'Open Objectivism'by Nickalis N. Tower
(Libertarian)
Monday, July 21, 2008
This is my Open Letter to Dr. David Kelley and The Atlas Society board members, which is respectfully submitted as a direct commentary and response to their presentation given in the "Information Session on The Atlas Society's Mission and Strategy"
Dear Dr. Kelley,
I enjoyed very much meeting and talking with you and others at your most recent summer conference at Portland Oregon. Given what you said in your introduction at the 'Reception for Newcomers', and given what was said regarding the reason for selecting 'Open Objectivism' as the new banner under which The Atlas Society will re-organize and re-focus its efforts, please consider this letter as some reasons why such a moniker is a poor choice of words, and what a proper alternative to 'Open Objectivism' might be.
First, let's imagine that the inner circle students of Aristotle, back in the ancient past, proclaimed that Aristotle's philosophy was 'closed', 'complete', and 'unchangeable'.
Now consider that in the 20th century, Ayn Rand took Aristotle's philosophy as her starting point, and revised his philosophy via pointing out errors in it and adapting it for use in her own life. Only later, after writing Atlas Shrugged, and revealing her completed views on life in John Galt's speech, did she have a largely completed philosophy suitable to offer the world as new and distinct from anything offered before.
And then, via her non-fiction works, and with the assistance of the Brandens, Ayn Rand coined her philosophy as Objectivism, and heroically began spreading it far and wide. She was the world's first internationally reknowned philosopher. And of course, most of us agree that Ayn Rand was the greatest mind of the past 2400 years.
Notice, she did not borrow 'Aristotle' or 'Aristotlian' in coining a name for her philosophy. The reason she didn't was because there were at least two fundamental differences between Objectivism and Aristotle's philosophy: Objectivism demonstrates an objective basis for concept formation, and man's conceptual knowledge. Ayn Rand had solved the problem of universals, on which Plato and Aristotle had differing fundamental views. And Objectivism's ethics roots the rights of man firmly in reality, and therefore not to be granted by men or anyone's god.
Ayn Rand once said that 'Existentialism' would've been her first choice of a word under which to coin her philosophy, but that, sadly, had been taken.
Why did TAS choose 'Open Objectivism' ?
At the conference, you said that on fundamentals, TAS agrees with ARI that Objectivism is a complete philosophy. It was said that the way the Individual integrates (or should integrate) Objectivism to their own life is viewed differently by TAS and ARI. It was said that ARI views Objectivism, the philosophy, as 'closed', meaning that no one can add to (or remove from) it, revise (or point out) any errors in it, and that Objectivism as a word is the property of Ayn Rand and her 'intellectual heir', and no one else can claim to be 'true promoters' of Objectivism.
Why is 'Open Objectivism' the wrong choice of words?
1) It sets up the 'east coast vs. west coast' objectivist circles to be forever locked in an antagonistic idealogical and grade-school-popularity-contest battle.
2) It implies and smears everyone at ARI as 'closed minded' and the enemy of TAS and its members.
3) It quickly introduces new-comers to the ridiculous notion that they must 'pick a side', and that a person can only deal with one organization.
4) It prevents the spread of Objectivism, by promoting the private Ayn Rand / Branden struggles as relevant to Objectivism, the philosophy.
5) It implies that Objectivism, as laid out in OPAR, is closed, and that a person must either accept or reject it wholly (in accordance with siding with TAS or ARI).
Since, as you said Dr. Kelley, that on fundamentals of Objectivism, TAS intellectuals agree with ARI intellectuals, then I submit that promoting 'Open Objectivism' adds nothing new to the philosophy of Objectivism, merely how one might apply it to various life issues.
So how about 'Individualist Objectivism' or 'New Individualism'? TAS has aleady invested a lot of money promoting 'The New Individualist' magazine. Why not keep your group banner there?
Respectfully Submitted,
Nick Flint
21 July 2008
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
2008 Nickalis N. Tower, all rights reserved.
Published: Monday, July 21, 2008
Last modified: Monday, July 21, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Nickalis N. Tower only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Nickalis N. Tower is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Steve Butterbaugh
Date: 2008-07-21 10:49:29
When I first heard this sound bite from a friend who attended The Atlas Society's recent conference, I considered it then thought this was the last gasp of The Atlas Society. "Open Objectivism" immediately brings up "closed objectivism". At that point I realized that the final energies of this organization are going to be spent hashing through intellectual differences which have become personal differences (or the other way around) between Rand and Branden and Peikoff and Kelly. This means that The Atlas Society is not a source for new and expanding objectivism.
The Atlas Society in my opinion must choose a place in within the Objectivist thrust that adds something positive to that thrust. I don't see the Atlas Society as a fountainhead (i.e. a source) for new fundamental intellectual knowledge and don't go to its magazine for that purpose. Whenever I go to it I do so to learn what others are seeing in the world that are also interested in Objectivism and whose observations and identifications I might use to integrate my knowledge still wider regarding the world.
The Atlas Society is not a primary intellectual source for Objectivism ideas. It just isn't. When I want that, which I most often do, I go to ARI because I know they have a serious commitment to maintaining the intellectual standards which Rand displayed in her work. That fact opens me to them. Whatever I read from The Atlas Society is always something I have to be careful with and think through more diligently lest I put something in my brain that doesn't ultimately support me in my functioning in the world.
I think it is difficult to state plainly and realistically where one is in relation to what he is striving to attain. I don't doubt this is a problem for TAS. And, I don't have a problem that it is. What serious person or organization hasn't had this problem. But if TAS is going to grow and be an increasing value for the increasing numbers of people interested in Objectivism, then it has to be done. And, I think the first thing TAS has to address is the splits on which it has depended. To move forward and thrive, acting from their reaction to these splits has to be gotten out of their craw. Otherwise they have one foot nailed to the floor and can do nothing except trudge in circles. The sirens keep beckoning their ship and and as long as they heed them, they will keep slamming into the rocks until they are pronounced dead - if there is anyone left who cares to pronounce that fact.
Posted By: Darren Cauthon
Date: 2008-07-21 11:15:48
I think it\'s dishonest for TAS to use the term \"Objectivism\" at all, no matter what adjectives they attach to it. Objectivism is a word that identifies something very specific: Ayn Rand\'s philosophy. It is Ayn Rand\'s creation, nothing more, and nothing less. When groups like TAS use \"Objectivism\" to denote something that Ayn Rand did not include in her philosophy, they *at best* confuse the matter for individuals who may not be able to distinguish Ayn Rand\'s work from theirs. At worst, they intentionally steal Ayn Rand\'s work for their own gain.
So, it\'s not really a question of \"closed\" or \"open.\" It\'s a matter of proper identification. If they think they can add to Objectivism, good for them. They just shouldn\'t call their creation \"Objectivism.\"
Posted By: Michael Miller
Date: 2008-07-21 20:09:46
Thank you Nick, Steve, and Darren. I fully agree. I recall that back in the late 60's before ARI or the Atlas Society existed, Rand objected to anybody at all referring to themselves as Objectivists -- she was the only Objectivist. She preferred her admirers and adherents to her philosophy to call themselves "students of Objectivism." I also read recently she did not like the term "Randian" either, because she thought it sounded too cultish. They can now be chalked up to wishful thinking, of course, since both those trains have left the station for ubiquity.
As an ardent objectionist, and libertarian, I vigorously protest this false association of Ayn Rand to me; implied by the category placement of this post. Ayn Rand was vehemently opposed to libertarianism.
"For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called 'hippies of the right,' who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs."
[Ayn Rand, "Brief Summary," The Objectivist, September 1971]
"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies."
[Ayn Rand, "What Can One Do?" Philosophy: Who Needs It]
You were however, right about one very important fact about Objectivism: Ayn Rand's inability to differentiate between the multitude of theories which co-exist under the broad category of anarchist thought, and understand that collectivism is not an inherent part of anarchism, proves that it is indeed, a static and dead philosophy.
Also, as a member of the LP's "anarchist" faction, I heartily embrace, with a preponderance of amusement, the term: "hippies of the right"
Regarding your note, 'A Knight': I wrote this article regarding Objectivism, because I agree that Politics Rests on Ethics, which rests on Epistemology, etc. Nolan chart is responsible for 'labeling' me a Libertarian, based on the Nolan chart quiz I answered. I'll promote Objectivism in this forum, because there are Libertarians who are interested in Objectivism. Chief among them, I think, is Dr. Kelley.
Ayn Rand's message (in 1971) was that you could NOT have a political organization comprised of a rag-tag assemble of individuals, that together (and separately) screamed their 'multitude of theories' and get anywhere useful with it in the culture. And for 40 years, Libertarian has proved itself to be quite impotent, with its 'multitude of anarchist theories'.
Ayn Rand vehemently disliked those Libertarians who used all her political ideas (from Objectivism), and never credited her or the philosophy as the source for them. I can't argue with her indignant attitude.
This has to be the most facetious article on this website! I am surprised how many libertarians have been fleeced by Ayn Rand\'s pseudo-philosophy.
an example of "Objectivist" nonsense:
"the reason she didn\'t was because there were at least two fundamental differences between Objectivism and Aristotle\'s philosophy: Objectivism demonstrates an objective basis for concept formation, and man\'s conceptual knowledge. Ayn Rand had solved the problem of universals, on which Plato and Aristotle had differing fundamental views. And Objectivism\'s ethics roots the rights of man firmly in reality, and therefore not to be granted by men or anyone\'s god."
First of all, Ayn Rand did not solve the "problem of universals." In fact the so-called "problem of universals" has not been taken seriously by anyone in Western thought since the Middle Ages. Second of all, one can argue that the "problem of universals" has no ready solution because it is not a real question. Of course Ayn Rand would not realize this, considering that she has no knowledge of philosophy after Aristotle. She scoffed all modern philosophies such as existentialism, logical positivism, analytical and linguistic philosophy, etc. Ayn Rand and her sheep pretentiously pimp her meaningless pseudo-intellectual drivel without realizing that Western thought moved on. Then again, calling her system "Aristotelianism"or the like couldn\'t hurt as she could have ridden off Aristotle\'s coattails some more.
Third of all, Ayn Rand\'s "morality" is inherently amoral. (The virtue of selfishness? The evil of self-sacrifice? Sounds like the antithesis of ethics!) Contrary to being ground in reality, Objectivist ethics are rooted in a Manichean fantasy world. Objectivism depends on a dichotomy between altruism and egoism. The problem is that this dichotomy is largely exagerated by Objectivism. (What about cases of altruistic action with self-interest?)
"Ayn Rand once said that \'Existentialism\' would\'ve been her first choice of a word under which to coin her philosophy, but that, sadly, had been taken."
"Reverse Marxism" would be a far better name for Randian philosophy beause that is precisely what it is. (Swap Hegelian dialectic with Aristotelian dialectic, replace Marxist economics with a dumbed down version of Austrian economics, come to the same conclusion of economic determinism and the need for a totalitarian collective...)
I find a knight\'s comments especially amusing! An Objectivist can not be a libertarian! A knight seems like a clever individual. He KNOWS Rand and libertarianism are opposed... yet he fancies himself an Objectivist. Why do so many libertarians follow the fascist Ayn Rand? I strongly recommend reading The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker to overcome this programming.
An example of this confusion, consider Penn and Teller, two libertarian entertainers whom I admire. I was quite shocked and disappointed to find that they were fans of Rand. Fortunately, the proparanda does not affect them too much, except in rare cases. Penn Jillette\'s statement in the second hand smoke episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit to the affect that someone else\'s right to smoke trumps their right as nonsmokers sounds like a strain of Randian fascism. (I would offer a libertarian defense of public smoking bans but that is another topic.)
"You were however, right about one very important fact about Objectivism: Ayn Rand\'s inability to differentiate between the multitude of theories which co-exist under the broad category of anarchist thought, and understand that collectivism is not an inherent part of anarchism, proves that it is indeed, a static and dead philosophy."
Could not have said things better myself! I mostly agree that Objectivism is a static and dead philosophy. That is, I agree that it is static and dead, but I would not call it a philosophy.
"Ayn Rand\'s message (in 1971) was that you could NOT have a political organization comprised of a rag-tag assemble of individuals, that together (and separately) screamed their \'multitude of theories\' and get anywhere useful with it in the culture."
So much for the individualism ostensibly championed by Rand!
A Respectful Suggestion to Nick Flint: TAS is a pseudo-Objectivist group, which cashes in on Ayn Rand’s name. You will discover this for yourself when you attend OCON 2009 in Boston. Until then, here’s a source of information that will bring you up to speed rapidly:
So I take it that the rabidly neoconservative Ayn Rand Institute are the only "true" objectivists. So much for rescuing Objectivism! Guess Rand fans must disregard the work of Kelley and Sciabarra and swallow the entire "Objectivist" package with all the crap it comes with.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Nickalis N. Tower, all rights reserved.