MENU

Who Qualifies as an Objectivist?

By Roger E. Bissell

August 24, 2024

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

Almost 60 years ago, writing in The Objectivist Newsletter, Ayn Rand’s co-editor, Nathaniel Branden wrote “A Message to Our Readers,” in which he said: “In the future, when Objectivism has become an intellectual and cultural movement on a wider scale, when a variety of authors have written books dealing with some aspect of the Objectivist philosophy, it could be appropriate for those in agreement to describe themselves as ‘Objectivists’.” (And not merely “Students of Objectivism.”)

Actually, as he later stated, it would have been appropriate to do so right from the start, once a person was familiar and in agreement with Rand’s basic ideas as expressed in her novels and her essays and with the lecture courses given by Nathaniel and (his then-wife) Barbara. (See “Who is an Objectivist?” online at: https://nathanielbranden.com/who-is-an-objectivist/.) But at the very least, judging by the dozens of books that have been published on the Objectivist philosophy since Rand’s death in 1982, “the future” he referred to has long since arrived.

So, considering that there can be actual Objectivists beyond the ever-shrinking “Inner Circle” that Rand trusted during her years of philosophizing, who qualifies as being an Objectivist?

What qualifies a person as “Objectivist” should also be termed most generally and succinctly, rather than in voluminous and increasingly exclusionary detail. From all the evidence I have seen, it’s apparent that Rand agreed with this, also.

I think that’s a legitimate question, but I also think that it’s all too easy to pick one’s own pet list of views that can qualify oneself as being (or someone else as not being) an Objectivist. (Such a list, for instance, might include Ayn Rand’s views on a woman president, on homosexuality, on anarchism vs. limited government in politics, on survival vs. flourishing in ethics, etc.)

Branden has pointed out—correctly, in my opinion, as evidenced by comments Rand made in her journals—that Rand held a “minimalist” view of the Objectivist metaphysics. It’s the Law of Identity and its corollaries, and that’s it. Well, I think what qualifies a person as “Objectivist” should also be termed most generally and succinctly, rather than in voluminous and increasingly exclusionary detail. From all the evidence I have seen, it’s apparent that Rand agreed with this, also.

For instance, in “About the Author” in the appendix to Atlas Shrugged, Rand said, “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

Do you agree with that? Then you agree with Rand’s written statement of the essence of her philosophy. Wouldn’t that mean that you are, in essence, an Objectivist?

Do you agree with that? Then you agree with Rand’s written statement of the essence of her philosophy.

Or, at the sales conference at Random House, preceding the 1957 publication of Atlas Shrugged, Rand presented the essence of her philosophy “while standing on one foot.” She said: “1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality (‘Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed’ or ‘Wishing won’t make it so.’) 2. Epistemology: Reason (‘You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.’ 3. Ethics: Self-Interest (‘Man is an end in himself.’) 4. Politics: Capitalism (‘Give me liberty or give me death.’)” (Note: she did not include her aesthetics in the “essence.”)

Do you agree with these principles? Then you agree with Rand’s verbal statement of the essence of her philosophy. Wouldn’t that mean that you are, in essence, an Objectivist?

Later, in 1962, in her column “Introducing Objectivism,” Rand gave “the briefest summary” of her philosophy:

  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.

Do you agree with Rand’s summary of her philosophy? If so, aren’t you an Objectivist?

Finally, in “Brief Summary” (1971), Rand said: “If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest [e.g., capitalism and egoism] follows. This—the supremacy of reason—was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism.”

Do you agree with this statement about the supremacy and consistent application of reason? If yes, then aren’t you in agreement with Rand on the essence of Objectivism? Aren’t you then an Objectivist?

In the very sparse, minimalist framework of Rand’s philosophy outlined above, there are several very simple tenets: objective reality, reason, rational self-interest, life as the standard of value, man’s rights, and laissez-faire capitalism.

In the very sparse, minimalist framework of Rand’s philosophy outlined above, there are several very simple tenets: objective reality, reason, rational self-interest, life as the standard of value, man’s rights, and laissez-faire capitalism. Just as you can rightly consider yourself an Aristotelian if you agree with the essentials of his philosophy, you can rightly consider yourself an Objectivist (or Randian) if you agree with these basic, essential principles of her philosophy—all the more so if, like me, you do so unreservedly and in toto.

Now, this does not mean that you must agree with all of Rand’s positions, especially if you believe that one or more of them is in conflict with these basic principles. Since she is no longer around to agree or disagree with challenges to her less basic positions, it is up to each of us, as independent thinkers, to judge the truth of each particular matter. This will require checking our premises, making sure our views correspond to reality and cohere with one another, and double-checking our conclusions, as good independent thinkers should.

You don’t need the approval of the Ayn Rand Institute or anyone else in order to be an Objectivist.

But even given such disagreements, it is long overdue to discard the stultifying and insulting label “Student of Objectivism.” You don’t have to be a priest or a bishop in order to be a Catholic—you didn’t have to be a commissar or a member of the Politburo in order to be a Communist—and you don’t need the approval of the Ayn Rand Institute or anyone else in order to be an Objectivist. If you have a working knowledge of the John Galt Secret Decoder Ring, that’s sufficient.

 

 

(Visited 890 times, 1 visits today)