What's In A Name?

I am not an Objectivist.

I agree with all of Objectivist philosophy, if not in every detail, at least in every principle. It is, to date, the most complete and correct philosophy ever developed. It is not a complete philosophy, however. There are some philosophical questions Objectivism never got around to addressing. I have very specific views in some of these areas, none of which are in disagreement with Objectivism, but they are not, themselves, Objectivism. There are also some minor points in Objectivism that I think need clarification and refinement. My clarifications and refinements also cannot be called Objectivism.

Many of those who call themselves Objectivists today are not Objectivists at all. Some agree with “most of Objectivism,“or start with Objectivism in their thinking, but hold and promote views which are either contradictory to Objectivism or have nothing to do with it.

Other’s, like myself, who really do agree with Objectivism in almost all points, would like to call ourselves Objectivists. Most people interested in philosophy understand what Objectivism is, and it would make our positions much easier to explain if I could simply say, “I am an Objectivist.” Whatever minor points of difference there are between our own views and those of Ayn Rand’s specific philosophy are usually not important enough to explain when one’s general principles are being discussed.

But to call oneself an Objectivist while holding views which are not in complete agreement with Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, however minor those disagreements, especially if others understand the nature of those disagreements, is dishonest in two ways: first, whether intended or not, when someone calls himself an Objectivist, especially if he is promoting his own views or his own works, it is like stealing a brand name. Objectivism has a very wide audience due entirely to the productive work of Ayn Rand, and that name automatically draws the attention of those who admire her work. Secondly, to use that name for one’s own work, if it is not strictly in agreement with Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, is both deceptive and misleading to any who are expecting what is called Objectivism to actually be Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

There is nothing wrong with differing with Objectivism, or with both promoting the views of Objectivism (as Objectivism) and also noting those specific things with which one disagrees. Ayn Rand would have been horrified to think anyone would believe anything, just because she said it, or because it was in “her” philosophy. She said herself:

“I urge the readers to use their own judgment as to whether a particular article is or is not consonant with Objectivist principles. Remember, it is a fundamental tenet of Objectivism that one must not accept ideas on faith.”

That includes, of course, faith in Ayn Rand or her works.

But, she continues with this particular point about Objectivism:

“If you wonder why I am so particular about protecting the integrity of the term ‘Objectivism,’ my reason is that ‘Objectivism’ is the name I have given to my philosophy—therefore, anyone using that name for some philosophical hodgepodge of his own, without my knowledge or consent, is guilty of the fraudulent presumption … of trying to pass his thinking off as mine…. What is the proper policy on this issue? If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with–and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own.”¹

Pseudo-Objectivists

Most of those who call themselves Objectivist are sincerely devoted to the purity of Objectivism as expounded by Ayn Rand. Where there are differences, they are usually inadvertent or believed to be mere differences of interpretation. Certainly those who call themselves Objectivists, who truly understand Objectivism, are not attempting to cash in on the value of that name. That kind of inconsistency or dishonesty would not be possible to true Objectivists.

There are organizations and individuals, however, that call themselves Objectivist and claim to be promoters of Objectivism who promote ideas that not only differ from Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, but flatly contradict at least some of its essential principles. Many make no pretensions about being faithful to Objectivism as espoused by Ayn Rand. For example: the so-called, “Sense Of Life Objectivists,” state in their credo, “I acknowledge that Ayn Rand made mistakes; that she did not address some philosophical questions needing to be addressed; that she was wrong about some matters of considerable existential moment, such as homosexuality.” [Note: Since the original publication of this book, SOLO have updated their credo, removing the above claims.]

If you suppose these are only minor disagreements, the credo also says:

“Sense of Life Objectivists … has been set up … to galvanise ALL Objectivists who recognise that Objectivism is a way of living & who repudiate any reason/passion dichotomy.”

In case this is not clear to you, this is a flat contradiction of Objectivism’s most fundamental tenet. Even ignoring the fact that Objectivism is not “a way of living,” but a Philosophy, to deny “any reason/passion dichotomy,” is to deny any difference between objective reason and subjective passion. It is a gross obfuscation of principles that results in a grand deception.

To admit they disagree with Ayn Rand and continue to call themselves Objectivists appears to be the very kind of dishonesty not possible to a true Objectivist. There would be nothing wrong with saying they agree with everything Ayn Rand said with exceptions X, Y, and Z, but to hijack the name Objectivism to promote their own different philosophy as Ayn Rand’s philosophy, is both stealing (gaining unearned value on the product of someone else’s effort) and fraud (deceiving all those who suppose what they are promoting is genuine Objectivism).

I do not believe there is an intentional misappropriation of the name “Objectivist” by the “Sense Of Life Objecivists”or that it was done with the intention of deceiving anyone. I am convinced they believe they are in some sense “rescuing” Objectivism from some supposed perversion resulting from shortcomings of Objectivism itself or mistakes resulting from the personal views of Ayn Rand. No doubt, Ojectivism needs to be rescued; it needs to be rescued from all those who have discovered Objectivism, but are bent on using it as a tool for promoting their own agenda or a different philosophy.

“Passed Off” as Objectivism

Some ideas and movements labeled “Objectivist” or promoted as “Objectivism” today are more or less legitimate offshoots of Objectivism. They are not Objectivism, but embrace some of the principles of Objectivism and either expand on them or add other elements or only partially apply those principles to certain aspects of what is being promoted. The most obvious examples are many varieties of Libertarianism. In most cases, Libertarians do not promote their ideologies as Objectivism, even when they claim their views are, “objectivist in nature,” or are, “based on Objectivist principles,“which they often are.

There are other ideas and movements today that intentionally promote themselves as “Objectivist,” which are both perversions of Objectivism and inimical to it. Some of the things being promoted as Objectivism today include the following:

1. The growing movement to be apologetic, inclusive, and “open-minded,” which is not at all shy about pronouncing those wishing to preserve the integrity of Rand’s Objectivism as “cultists”.

2. The penchant for legitimizing the inappropriate, the squalid, and the effete illustrated by the number of self-style “objectivists” attempting to express profound “skyscraper” ideas in “gutter” language.

3. Using the correct Objectivist principle that rejects as immoral the use of law or force to regulate personally chosen behavior, even if self-destructive, as justification for promoting and normalizing those behaviors and treating them as benevolent. While they ought to be free to promote what they like, it ought not to be done in the name of Objectivism.

4. Using the fact that Objectivism rejects censorship and prosecution of “victimless crimes” to promote as moral and virtuous those things which pander to people’s weaknesses such as pornography, prostitution, drug addition, and excessive gambling.

5. The promotion of anti-rational concepts such as Chris Matthew Sciabarra’s dialectics.

There is no objection to people being inclusive, if they choose, or using cheap language or promoting self-destructive behavior or promoting pornography or even using bad logic. The objection is to their doing those things in the name of Objectivism. There is nothing wrong with these same people calling themselves Objectivists, or promoting Objectivism, or declaring their agreement with it. When those same people name their movements, “Objectivist,” or claim they are spokesmen for Objectivism, or that their movements are promoting Objectivism, then I object.

Since I cannot address all of these movements at length, I have chosen the one that is most actively attempting to pass itself off as Objectivism while undermining some of the most important of Objectivist principles. In part, this movement includes many of the other characteristics of “false objectivism.” I will restrict our analysis of this movement to its basic agenda, the normalization of homosexuality and the attempt to make Objectivism compatible with this self-destructive behavior.

From: Ayn Rand Institute, Frequently Asked Questions “About The Ayn Rand Institute, Is ARI or anyone else formally vested with the right to speak on behalf of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism?”