Open Objectivism
- - - - -
For reference:
Fact and Value: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The Leonard Peikoff/David Kelley intellectual exchange: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
- - - - -
As the person who first raised the issue of tolerance and of open vs. closed Objectivism—and the person whose position has been under consideration in recent posts—I’d like first of all to thank Walter Donway for his articulate explanation and defense of the position we share. To weigh in with additional thoughts:
1. Historically, the debate began in 1989 when Peter Schwartz attacked me for speaking to a libertarian organization, the Laissez-Farire Books supper club. I responded with a 4-page open letter ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) mailed (in pre-internet days) to my Objectivist colleagues, including Schwartz and Peikoff among others. I advocated tolerance in the service of the open expansion of Objectivism:
“There is much we can learn from others if we are willing to listen. And even where they are wrong, we strengthen the foundations of our own beliefs—the accuracy and range of our observations, the validity of our concepts, the rigor of our arguments—by the effort to prove why they are wrong.
“That’s why every age of reason has welcomed diversity and debate. The great minds of the Enlightenment declared war on the entire apparatus of intolerance: the obsession with official or authorized doctrine, the concepts of heresy and blasphemy, the party lines and intellectual xenophobia, the militant hostility among rival sects, the constant schisms and breaks, the character assassination of those who fall from grace. These are the techniques of irrational philosophies, such as Christianity or Marxism, and may well have been vital to their success. But they have no place in a philosophy of reason.
“Ayn Rand left us a magnificent system of ideas. But it is not a closed system. It is a powerful engine of integration. Let us not starve it of fuel by shutting our minds to what is good in other approaches. Let us test our ideas in open debate. If we are right, we have nothing to fear; if we are wrong, we have something to learn. Above all, let us encourage independent thought among ourselves. Let us welcome dissent, and the restless ways of the explorers among us. Nine out of ten new ideas will be mistakes, but the tenth will let in the light.”
That excerpt should make it clear that toleration of and engagement with those we disagree with is not the primary issue. The primary issue is whether Objectivism is open or closed as a philosophical system. If it’s open, we benefit from engagement. If closed, why bother? The open character is the founding principle of The Atlas Society, and we have pursued it many ways. An example is my work on benevolence as a virtue, which, as Walter explains, is grounded in basic values of Objectivism. That said, we are rigorous about what work we endorse: it must be consistent with established Objectivist principles, as hundreds of pages of exposition on our website will attest.
2. To my knowledge, this was the first time any Objectivist thinker has raised the issue of open vs. closed. I thought the open character was obvious; I thought my Objectivist colleagues were pursuing new Objectivist insights. “Fact and Value” was Peikoff’s response, saying that the philosophy was closed. I replied to his essay at length in The Contested Legacy pf Ayn Rand, esp. Chap 5. ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) No principal in Peikoff’s camp has responded to my arguments in 25 years. Meanwhile, I gave a talk on the issues in 2010, “Truth and Toleration Twenty Years Later” ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ).
My friends in the Gulch, this is an important issue and well worth debating. Having been party to this argument for 25 years, I hope my writing here today provides some historical context for those pursuing the issue in earnest. I'll try to answer any questions you might have.
For reference:
Fact and Value: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The Leonard Peikoff/David Kelley intellectual exchange: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
- - - - -
As the person who first raised the issue of tolerance and of open vs. closed Objectivism—and the person whose position has been under consideration in recent posts—I’d like first of all to thank Walter Donway for his articulate explanation and defense of the position we share. To weigh in with additional thoughts:
1. Historically, the debate began in 1989 when Peter Schwartz attacked me for speaking to a libertarian organization, the Laissez-Farire Books supper club. I responded with a 4-page open letter ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) mailed (in pre-internet days) to my Objectivist colleagues, including Schwartz and Peikoff among others. I advocated tolerance in the service of the open expansion of Objectivism:
“There is much we can learn from others if we are willing to listen. And even where they are wrong, we strengthen the foundations of our own beliefs—the accuracy and range of our observations, the validity of our concepts, the rigor of our arguments—by the effort to prove why they are wrong.
“That’s why every age of reason has welcomed diversity and debate. The great minds of the Enlightenment declared war on the entire apparatus of intolerance: the obsession with official or authorized doctrine, the concepts of heresy and blasphemy, the party lines and intellectual xenophobia, the militant hostility among rival sects, the constant schisms and breaks, the character assassination of those who fall from grace. These are the techniques of irrational philosophies, such as Christianity or Marxism, and may well have been vital to their success. But they have no place in a philosophy of reason.
“Ayn Rand left us a magnificent system of ideas. But it is not a closed system. It is a powerful engine of integration. Let us not starve it of fuel by shutting our minds to what is good in other approaches. Let us test our ideas in open debate. If we are right, we have nothing to fear; if we are wrong, we have something to learn. Above all, let us encourage independent thought among ourselves. Let us welcome dissent, and the restless ways of the explorers among us. Nine out of ten new ideas will be mistakes, but the tenth will let in the light.”
That excerpt should make it clear that toleration of and engagement with those we disagree with is not the primary issue. The primary issue is whether Objectivism is open or closed as a philosophical system. If it’s open, we benefit from engagement. If closed, why bother? The open character is the founding principle of The Atlas Society, and we have pursued it many ways. An example is my work on benevolence as a virtue, which, as Walter explains, is grounded in basic values of Objectivism. That said, we are rigorous about what work we endorse: it must be consistent with established Objectivist principles, as hundreds of pages of exposition on our website will attest.
2. To my knowledge, this was the first time any Objectivist thinker has raised the issue of open vs. closed. I thought the open character was obvious; I thought my Objectivist colleagues were pursuing new Objectivist insights. “Fact and Value” was Peikoff’s response, saying that the philosophy was closed. I replied to his essay at length in The Contested Legacy pf Ayn Rand, esp. Chap 5. ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) No principal in Peikoff’s camp has responded to my arguments in 25 years. Meanwhile, I gave a talk on the issues in 2010, “Truth and Toleration Twenty Years Later” ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ).
My friends in the Gulch, this is an important issue and well worth debating. Having been party to this argument for 25 years, I hope my writing here today provides some historical context for those pursuing the issue in earnest. I'll try to answer any questions you might have.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
As a secondary matter, there is the tendency to go back to the comfortable or historical when confronted with new information because it is comfortable. It is a part of human nature that very few overcome without constant reinforcement of correct principle. That re-wiring of the brain doesn't happen instantly - it takes conscious and continuous effort to become ingrained within us. It's the reason there are so many self-help books, diet fads, and fashions and why people constantly flit from one to another. Ask anyone who has lost significant weight and kept it off, however, and they will readily acknowledge that they did so only by changing their attitudes and behaviors toward food. So must we examine our attitudes and behaviors toward endeavors of the mind.
Regardless of discovering or learning new principles, simply applying known principles takes a great deal of thought. No one stopped thinking when Ayn Rand died. Her death was not a "moratorium on brains" and was not proclaimed as that by anyone.
Objectivism's main attraction is it frees the mind. but demands the price of honesty as a payment. Then assigns the harshest judge to rule. Thus ends Diogenes search.
Ayn Rand once said and she may have said it more than once is that she was only interested in attracting people who had an interest in what she had to say. She also said that her ideas i.e. philosophy would endure long after she was gone. My proof of her statement is this site. Will the same hold true for you? What does it matter to you that Lenard Peikoff , Peter Schwartz and many more of her inner circle to include someone like me who was not part of the inner circle view Objectivism as a closed philosophy?
Unfortunately for me I am not as perceptive as Ayn Rand was but I think you have a motivation to some how degrade the work of a genius. She over time will have more of an effect on people with education than anyone else who has ever lived. You know of course Atlas Shrugged is only the SECOND most influential book ever written, the bible being number one. As an avowed Objectivist I do not to the best of my knowledge deviate from the principles set forth by Ayn Rand!!!!
The last sentence only means it's time to search for false premises.
the whole comment is well meant but needs to be re-written.. It defeats it's own purpose.
Objectivism is not open to any change that would lead to conflict with the philosophy that AR created; the def. of Obj.ism cannot change.
If dealing with libertarians in any manner that would diminish the image of Obj.ism, then that would (in '89 or now) be wrong.
Debate on issues is one thing; conflicting with Obj.ism while representing oneself as an Obj.ist is quite another.
It may be the first time to your knowledge, but I can assure you, that in the hinterlands, that discussion has been going on for40 years at the minimum. As an ancient Objectivist what I call the Piekoff attitude has caused divisiveness. In my case, I was in Michigan's Detroit area when we got the message that our "Ayn Rand Society" could no longer use her name. Those questioning this edict were threatened to be dismissed. In any case, it was the first time I heard about Libertarianism. I don't know if the debates are still ongoing as I moved to Florida 24 years ago.
Pity, but it seems most organizations start, grow, then inside fighting stymies them, and then they fail.
To me, Schwartz is a dogmatist, and that is the exact opposite of the heros of Ayn Rand --- or any other thinker. I see he is now a “Distinguished Fellow, Ayn Rand Institute.” That’s nice, I suppose, and it fits in that ARI appears to me to be dogmatic: If Rand did not say it, then it is not right. If she did say it, it is right (even if she made a mistake). I think they should rename themselves into Rand Witnesses and follow the teachings of Rand (right or wrong) the way Jehovah’s Witnesses follow their bible.
I had some friends who are ARI members, and, just as the Jehovah’s Witnesses shun those who question anything, they no longer talk to me because I questioned a few points about Rand.
The late Sam Steiger was a former six-term US Congressman from my state of Arizona. He ran for governor of Arizona on the Libertarian ticket in, I think, 1984. He was a genuine gentleman rancher and had the "people's touch." At a talk given July 31, 1982, at The Nevada Libertarian Party “Candidate's Convention” in Las Vegas, Nevada, he suggested what he modestly called:
Steiger’s Law: People involved in a structure spend more time and energy maintaining that structure than in working toward its goals.
Of the latter, several times they lay in wait for her at her Ford Hall Forum talks, pouncing during the question period: "Miss Rand, why do you not support the Libertarian Party, which is so obviously in line with your principles?"
Rand had studied the writings and speeches of Libertarians, I'm sure, and knew that the Libertarians borrowed from her "as convenient" to support their own flavor of anarchy or socialism or free-wheeling flights of fancy. The ill-fated Republic of Minerva was but one of these adventures. I was involved with some people producing a totally unauthorized film of Anthem.
Rand rejected ALL of these, referring in public to "Leebertairian Heepies" and castigating the film project in private with the words, "I'LL SUE YOU!"
To this day there are those who staunchly continue to defend Rand from what they see as the very same crowd of intellectual thieves.
True to Rand's prediction, the Libertarian Party has had little discernible positive impact (from an Objectivist perspective) on American politics. Rand said it was too early, in answer to the question, "Is Atlas Shrugging?" She also said, if I remember correctly, that American politics had no working philosophy other than pragmatism. She of course rejected pragmatism. I believe that she regarded the Libertarians as pragmatists.
So there you have it.
As far as I can tell, David Kelley's position suffers especially from being regarded as an alternative to Leonard Peikoff's. Peikoff does have, if I understand correctly, the authority to present and publish additional works by Rand that did not appear in her lifetime. He also cannot avoid speaking as to what does and does not constitute Objectivism. He once said that if one wants to set up a philosophy that borrows Rand's ideas, please do not call it Objectivism, but instead call it Gloopism. (He made up that word.)
Kelley has, as do all of us, not only the right but the moral necessity of interpreting what Rand meant in her works. If Objectivism is to have any purpose at all we must use it. None of us, not Peikoff, not Kelley, and certainly not I, has any "Papal" authority to speak for Rand. All of us are capable of error, and of recognizing and correcting errors, our own and others'. But we can and MUST present our own views.
Precisely. If something is true, every time we revisit it it's truth comes out and reconfirms to us it's veracity. It is not that the nature of the thing has changed, it is because we as humans are so inconstant that we must be reminded lest we stray.
Load more comments...