Is Objectivism dead?

I think a forum’s rules would be determined by its aims. I could well imagine a very strict one for those who understand and agree with Objectivism’s basics—at times I have longed to be in such a forum so I could delve into different kinds of problems than I do here. (And not have to deal with those opponents who are so sure of their views that they feel entitled to be snide.) I prefer to teach than to refute or argue against.

But a looser forum such as SOLO has its place for those who intend to enter intellectual battles. It’s much more realistic. You also begin to see the hierarchical structure of knowledge, and suddenly you start to remember passages from Rand’s work and see them in a new light: “Oh, that’s what she must have meant!” You may decide she was wrong about this or that, or that she was speaking loosely sometimes, or that her wording of something was misleading. But at least you know, and your appreciation of her best thought will deepen.

Nathaniel Branden once said that in his own mind he doesn’t think of his own work as Objectivist psychology, although it is based on that philosophy’s epistemology and metaphysics—that a field’s being divided into different schools of thought is a sign that it is in a very early stage of development. He considers himself to be doing simply psychology.

This might seem to be true of the queen of the sciences; eventually, we should be speaking, not of the Objectivist philosophy, but of just philosophy. But the case of philosophy is different. It deals with the most fundamental issues possible. There are reasons why the same errors will be cropping up for centuries to come.

Not only because every person born has to think his own way afresh through to philosophic truth, but also because, as Ayn Rand noted, evil philosophies are systems of rationalization. Since man has free will, there will always be those who will be motivated to tear down the very structure of existence itself to assuage the torment of their own soul death—just as serial sadist murderers will always emerge from time to time. And some of these persons can be brilliant men, geniuses. (Please note that here I am not saying any particular philosophy is evil just because it is wrong—just noting the principle underlying the likely coming-to-be of such evil. I leave it up to the reader to make judgments about specific systems.)

There are also philosophies created by persons not really intelligent enough to handle philosophy, though they may be literal geniuses in their particular field. They will continue to create systems and get influence and respect.

In short, it may be that we will always need the term “Objectivism” to distinguish the revolution wrought by Rand, no matter how extensively it is altered and develops, from the philosophies of future thinkers who may wish to challenge it in a radical way.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/15, 1:50pm)

Eddie, you are right. Once you declare a forum to be open in the manner you described, you have to be prepared for all kinds of strong disagreement. The thing about intellectual exchange is that when people express their contrary opinions forcefully, it very often comes off as an insulting tone of voice that was not intended. It is necessary to bend over backwards to avoid this impression, and many people don’t bother to do this. It happened to me just yesterday on the Nathaniel Branden forum. I was even being careful, but still I was misperceived. The problem is exacerbated when some readers happen to be touchy on certain topics.

You have to realize also that on any Objectivist forum there are numerous young people who have only recently encountered Ayn Rand’s thought and are somewhat overzealous in their emulation of her passionate idealism. I tend to like these people, but sometimes the results are unfortunate.

I wanted to add a few things to my post above. I definitely think Objectivism will win, and win big, within a century. Interplanetary travel may have something to do with it. Just as the United States of America had to await the discovery of a new continent, so a deeper and more permanent basis for freedom may only entrench itself after such a quantum leap of location. In other words, we need people starting completely afresh, but starting from a new point zero if you will. In the first case, the new starting point was the intellectual atmosphere post-Renaissance; in the next era, the new starting point will be the intellectual atmosphere post-Rand. It may be the spectacular example of freedom on a second planet that finally turns Earth around also.

My only point is that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” We will never be able to assume that irrationalism is completely dead, and we will, at least for quite a long time, need a name for the philosophy of reason that distinguishes it from all the errors of the past. I think we can all agree that Objectivism is the best name, no matter what alterations or extensions the core body of thought undergoes.

It is tempting to say that in the far, far future the term “Objectivism” may fall by the wayside. But because of the nature of philosophy, its indirect effects over long stretches of time, and the fact that a philosophy can proceed from nefarious psychological motives that can always arise in a being of free will, I don’t think it will. Or if it does, some other adjective may take its place.