Beyond Objectivism

Beginning With Objectivism

Most of this article was originally the introduction to the article, “Perception.” As an introduction to that article it is no longer needed, but the ideas are still important to introduce the philosophy of The Autonomist and its relationship to Objectivism.

What is Objectivism

[I originally addressed this question in the articles, “Objectivism Characterized,“and, “Brave New Objectivism,” a much underappreciated satire on Objectivist variations. Here, I am more interested in what a philosopher’s view of Objectivism ought to be in relationship to new philosophical development.]

Is Objectivism a closed or open system? The entire controversy over this question, which generates a lot of heat, but not so much light, seems a bit silly to me. I personally regard Objectivism to be the specific contribution to philosophy made by Ayn Rand, nothing more, and nothing less.

The argument that philosophy is not a closed field is certainly correct but with regard to Objectivism, is irrelevant. Objectivism is not philosophy, it is a philosophy, it is not even a complete philosophy, it is only a contribution to the field. It is a major contribution and probably the single most important contribution since Aristotle, but it is a specific contribution made by a single individual who gave her contribution the name, Objectivism.

Is Objectivism open to analysis and criticism? Of course it is, as any contribution to philosophy is; because philosophy is open-ended; specific contributions to it are not, else they could not be identified. If just anything related to Ayn Rand’s contribution to philosophy, with this taken out, and this added in, and this other aspect changed, are all called Objectivism, the word Objectivism ceases to identify anything.

But this is strictly a personal view and not worth debating, because the debate is not going to change anything. What people call things is not something any debate will alter. People call things what they like; accuracy is seldom the determining factor of what they like. Just as they call all copiers, “Xerox,” and all tissues, “Kleenex,” the ignorant will call anything remotely philosophical and related to Ayn Rand, “Objectivism.”

Obsolete Objectivism

There is another reason the debate does not interest me. I believe it is time for Objectivism to be made obsolete. Ayn Rand’s Objectivism was developed over a number of years (The Fountainhead, 1943, Atlas Shrugged, 1957, The Virtue of Selfishness, 1961); but the essentials of Objectivism are over 50 years old.

In all that time, despite the arguments and debates, there has not been a major contribution to philosophy. What have the philosophers been doing all that time? Well, mostly they have been arguing about who the true guardians of Objectivism are, and over non-essentials, like libertarianism, feminism, and homosexuality.

There has been some very interesting and important research done, mostly of historical interest, but no new philosophical principles have been developed. If you talk to serious Objectivists, one comes to the astonishing conclusion, most Objectivists do not really believe there is any more ground, at least any significant ground, in the field of philosophy that needs to be covered.

This is hardly an objective conclusion. Ayn Rand herself did not believe her philosophy answered all the questions, and even identified areas that needed more work. One such area was aesthetics, for example, and one particular aspect for which she admitted there is no good philosophical theory, is music.

Objectivist Shortcomings

To date, Objectivism is the most complete and correct philosophy in history. Any new philosophy must begin where Objectivism ends. Even if the material is completely new, Objectivism must be acknowledged and how the new material is integrated with that philosophy must be addressed.

Objectivism does not answer all the questions, however, or even identify them all. All of Objectivist metaphysics, for example, consists of the axioms, the primacy of existence, and the entity verses event theory of cause; there is no Objectivist ontology at all. The discussion of the nature of life consists of a simple definition without any additional but sorely needed development. The nature of consciousness actually contains mistakes. Objectivist epistemology is the greatest advance in that field in history, yet it also contains mistakes and is not extensively developed. (Only the first 130 pages of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is actually Ayn Rand’s epistemology.) The most fully developed aspect of the philosophy is the ethics, but it also is very briefly developed and leaves lots of unanswered questions. Objectivist politics is only partially correct, and Objectivist aesthetics addresses only an application of the field, art. The essential questions of aesthetics, “what is beauty?” is not addressed at all.

My point is not to repudiate Objectivism, or to minimize the importance or significance of the advancements in philosophy and the integration of philosophical principles Objectivism achieved. The amount of ground covered and the incredible insights achieved by Ayn Rand are phenomenal. If one is to know only one philosophy, there is no other choice.

In spite of Objectivism’s contributions to the field of philosophy, however, it is not the end of philosophy, only the latest and greatest development in the field. As far as it has taken us, we still have further to go than we have thus far come. The problem is most Objectivists think we have arrived, when we should actually be starting on our way again.

On the Road Again

One of the intentions of The Autonomist is to get philosophy back on the road to discovery beginning at the place Objectivism has brought us. We have already begun to identify some of the issues Objectivism was mistaken about, (with the already mentioned article, “Perception”), and to identify issues Objectivism does not clearly address, (see “A Universal Mistake”).

My intention is threefold. First and most important, is the planned series of articles on philosophy itself, beginning with metaphysics, and a fully developed ontology. Second, will be less formal articles related to the practical application of philosophical principles in our own lives, as well as to understanding the real world of science, economics, and politics. Third, will be even less formal, and less regular, articles addressing some of the common mistakes in philosophy in todays movements and teachings, especially those that call themselves Objectivist.

I hope you will join me and others in this adventurous jouney of philosophical discovery.

—Reginald Firehammer (10/15/04)