| |
Rand did say that one should, at most, describe oneself as a student of Objectivism. This would have been an issue especially after her split with Branden. I would assume any relevant statement would be in either Philosophy Who Needs It or The New Left. I'm sure someone here will have an exact reference.
From a Q&A session at the Ford Hall Forum:
"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?"
This might be of interest:
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/ess/ess05.html
The bottom line is that one shouldn't write as an "Objectivist" if one disagrees with Rand on any substantive issue, since it amounts to false advertising. There are plenty of people here who believe in such absurdities as "anarcho-capitalism" which Rand excoriated and who call themselves Objectivists. You should judge for yourself how close your ideas fit hers, and whether you think its honest to call yourself an Objectivist. So far as I am aware there is just about no one, not even the most orthodox person at the Ayn Rand Institute, who absolutely agrees with her on everything, see, for instance, Peikoff and Binswanger's now liberal view of homosexuality. I would say that anyone who can knowledgeably agree with the following and who does not disagree with her on an issue like anarchism about which she made strong published condemnations could call themselves an Objectivist.
The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962.
by Ayn Rand
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:
1. Metaphysics Objective Reality
2. Epistemology Reason
3. Ethics Self-interest
4. 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.”
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
Copyright © 1962 by Times-Mirror Co.
(Edited by Ted Keer on 10/25, 9:18am)
|
|
Frankly, I believe that a lot of Rand's opinions were rationalized, but not well-examined. She largely took her views, when they agreed with convention, as granted. Her opinion of homosexuality is a case in point. She did not have homosexual urges. She did not prefer the way other women smelled to the way that men smelled. (A basic biological matter.) And hence she saw heterosexuality as in no need of explanation, and homosexuality as unimaginable. But people vary. each individual has a unique chemical makeup. One's preference for sugar or alcohol or the smell of women or men is in a large part genetically influenced. One has predispositions. Of course environment plays a role, and choice is the greatest of environmental factors. But for some people, certain choices amount to a denial of their natures. Top down reason cannot always override bottom up nature without amounting to spiritual suicide. 
