| Objectivist movement |
|---|
.jpg) |
Objectivism is aphilosophical system named and developed byRussian-American writer and philosopherAyn Rand. She described it as "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".[1]
Rand first expressed Objectivism in her fiction, most notablyThe Fountainhead (1943) andAtlas Shrugged (1957), and later in non-fiction essays and books.[2]Leonard Peikoff, a professional philosopher and Rand's designated intellectual heir,[3][4] later gave it a more formal structure. Peikoff characterizes Objectivism as a "closed system" insofar as its "fundamental principles" were set out by Rand and are not subject to change. However, he stated that "new implications, applications and integrations can always be discovered".[5]
Objectivism's main tenets are thatreality exists independently ofconsciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception (seedirect and indirect realism), that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process ofconcept formation andinductive logic, that the propermoral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (seerational egoism), that the onlysocial system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect forindividual rights embodied inlaissez-fairecapitalism, and that the role ofart in human life is to transform humans'metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.
Academic philosophers have generally paid little attention to or dismissed Rand's philosophy,[6] although a smaller number of academics do support it.[7] Nonetheless, Objectivism has been a persistent influence amongright-libertarians andAmerican conservatives.[8] TheObjectivist movement, which Rand founded, attempts to spread her ideas to the public and in academic settings.[9]
.jpg)
Rand originally expressed her ideas in her novels—most notably, in bothThe Fountainhead andAtlas Shrugged. She further elaborated on them in her periodicalsThe Objectivist Newsletter,The Objectivist, andThe Ayn Rand Letter, and in non-fiction books such asIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology andThe Virtue of Selfishness.[10]
The name "Objectivism" derives from the idea that human knowledge and values areobjective: they exist and are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by one's mind, and are not created by the thoughts one has.[11] Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy ofexistence—"existentialism"—had already been taken.[12]
Rand characterized Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth", based on reality, and intended as a method of defining human nature and the nature of the world in which we live.[10]
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.
Rand's philosophy begins with threeaxioms: existence, consciousness, andidentity.[13] Rand defined an axiom as "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."[14] As Objectivist philosopherLeonard Peikoff argued, Rand's argument for axioms "is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is proof that they areaxioms, that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable."[15]
Rand said thatexistence is the perceptually self-evident fact at the base of all other knowledge, i.e., that "existence exists". She further said that to be is to besomething, that "existenceis identity". That is, to be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes".[16] That which has no nature or attributes does not and cannot exist. The axiom of existence is conceptualized as differentiating something from nothing, while the law of identity is conceptualized as differentiating one thing from another, i.e., one's first awareness of the law of non-contradiction, another crucial base for the rest of knowledge. As Rand wrote, "A leaf ... cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time...A is A."[17] Objectivism rejects belief in anything alleged to transcend existence.[18]
Rand argued that consciousness is "the faculty of perceiving that which exists". As she put it, "to be conscious is to be conscious ofsomething", that is consciousness itself cannot be distinguished or conceptualized except in relation to an independent reality.[19] "It cannot be aware only of itself—there is no 'itself' until it is aware of something."[20] Thus, Objectivism posits that the mind does not create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality.[21] Expressed differently, existence has "primacy" over consciousness, which must conform to it. Any other type of argument Rand termed "the primacy of consciousness", including any variant of metaphysical subjectivism or theism.[22]
Objectivist philosophy derives its explanations of action andcausation from the axiom of identity, referring to causation as "the law of identity applied to action".[23] According to Rand, it is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities act is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different, they would act differently. As with the other axioms, an implicit understanding of causation is derived from one's primary observations of causal connections among entities even before it is verbally identified and serves as the basis of further knowledge.[24]
According to Rand, attaining knowledge beyond what is given by perception requires bothvolition (or the exercise offree will) and performing a specific method of validation by observation, concept-formation, and the application ofinductive anddeductive reasoning. For example, a belief in dragons, however sincere, does not mean that reality includes dragons. A process of proof identifying the basis in reality of a claimed item of knowledge is necessary to establish its truth.[25]
Objectivistepistemology begins with the principle that "consciousness is identification". This is understood to be a direct consequence of the metaphysical principle that "existence is identity".[26] Rand defined "reason" as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses".[27] Rand wrote "The fundamental concept of method, the one on which all the others depend, islogic. The distinguishing characteristic of logic (the art of non-contradictory identification) indicates the nature of the actions (actions of consciousness required to achieve a correct identification) and their goal (knowledge)—while omitting the length, complexity or specific steps of the process of logical inference, as well as the nature of the particular cognitive problem involved in any given instance of using logic."[28]
According to Rand,consciousness possesses a specific and finite identity, just like everything else that exists; therefore, it must operate by a specific method of validation. An item of knowledge cannot be "disqualified" by being arrived at by a specific process in a particular form. Thus, for Rand, the fact that consciousness must itself possess identity implies the rejection of both universal skepticism based on the "limits" of consciousness, as well as any claim to revelation, emotion or faith-based belief.
Objectivist epistemology maintains that all knowledge is ultimately based on perception. "Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident."[29] Rand considered the validity of the senses to be axiomatic and said that purported arguments to the contrary all commit the fallacy of the "stolen concept"[30] by presupposing the validity of concepts that, in turn, presuppose the validity of the senses.[31] She said that perception, being determined physiologically, is incapable of error. For example,optical illusions are errors in the conceptual identification of what is seen, not errors of sight itself.[32] The validity of sense perception, therefore, is not susceptible to proof (because it is presupposed by all proof as proof is only a matter of adducing sensory evidence) nor should its validity be denied (since the conceptual tools one would have to use to do this are derived from sensory data). Perceptual error, therefore, is not possible. Rand consequently rejectedepistemological skepticism, as she said that the skeptics' claim to knowledge "distorted" by the form or the means of perception is impossible.[32]
The Objectivist theory of perception distinguishes between theform andobject. The form in which an organism perceives is determined by the physiology of its sensory systems. Whatever form the organism perceives it in, what it perceives—the object of perception—is reality.[33] Rand consequently rejected theKantian dichotomy between "things as we perceive them" and "things as they are in themselves". Rand wrote:
The attack on man's consciousness and particularly on his conceptual faculty has rested on the unchallenged premise that any knowledge acquired by aprocess of consciousness is necessarily subjective and cannot correspond to the facts of reality, since it isprocessed knowledge … [but] all knowledgeis processed knowledge—whether on the sensory, perceptual or conceptual level. An "unprocessed" knowledge would be a knowledge acquired without means of cognition.[34]
The aspect of epistemology given the most elaboration by Rand is the theory of concept-formation, which she presented inIntroduction to Objectivist Epistemology. She argued that concepts are formed by a process of measurement omission. Peikoff described this as follows:
To form a concept, one mentallyisolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is 'the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree'); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, oneintegrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it."A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted."[35]
According to Rand, "the term 'measurements omitted' does not mean, in this context, that measurements are regarded as non-existent; it means thatmeasurements exist, but are not specified. That measurementsmust exist is an essential part of the process. The principle is: the relevant measurements must exist insome quantity, but may exist inany quantity."[36]
Rand argued that concepts are organized hierarchically. Concepts such as 'dog,' which bring together "concretes" available in perception, can be differentiated (into the concepts of 'dachshund,' 'poodle,' etc.) or integrated (along with 'cat,' etc., into the concept of 'animal'). Abstract concepts such as 'animal' can be further integrated, via "abstraction from abstractions", into such concepts as 'living thing.' Concepts are formed in the context of knowledge available. A young child differentiates dogs from cats and chickens but need not explicitly differentiate them from deep-sea tube worms, or from other types of animals not yet known to him, to form a concept 'dog'.[37]
Because of its characterization of concepts as "open-ended" classifications that go well beyond the characteristics included in their past or current definitions, Objectivist epistemology rejects theanalytic-synthetic distinction as afalse dichotomy[38] and denies the possibility ofa priori knowledge.[39]
Rand rejected "feeling" as sources of knowledge. Rand acknowledged the importance of emotion for human beings, but she maintained that emotions are a consequence of the conscious or subconscious ideas that a person already accepts, not a means of achieving awareness of reality. "Emotions are not tools of cognition."[40] Rand also rejected all forms offaith or mysticism, terms that she used synonymously. She defined faith as "the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from oragainst the evidence of one's senses and reason... Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as 'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing.'"[41] Reliance on revelation is like reliance on aOuija board; it bypasses the need to show how it connects its results to reality. Faith, for Rand, is not a "short-cut" to knowledge, but a "short-circuit" destroying it.[42]
Objectivism acknowledges the facts that human beings have limited knowledge, are vulnerable to error, and do not instantly understand all of the implications of their knowledge.[43] According to Peikoff, one can be certain of a proposition if all of the available evidence verifies it, i.e., it can be logically integrated with the rest of one's knowledge; one is then certain within the context of the evidence.[44]
Rand rejected the traditionalrationalist/empiricist dichotomy, arguing that it embodies a false alternative: conceptually based knowledge independent of perception (rationalism) versus perceptually based knowledge independent of concepts (empiricism). Rand argued that neither is possible because the senses provide the material of knowledge while conceptual processing is also needed to establish knowable propositions.
The philosopherJohn Hospers, who was influenced by Rand and shared her moral and political opinions, disagreed with her concerning issues of epistemology.[45] Some philosophers, such asTibor Machan, have argued that the Objectivist epistemology is incomplete.[46]
Psychology professorRobert L. Campbell writes that the relationship between Objectivist epistemology and cognitive science remains unclear because Rand made claims about human cognition and its development which belong to psychology, yet Rand also argued that philosophy is logically prior to psychology and in no way dependent on it.[47][48]
The philosophersRandall Dipert andRoderick Long [ar;arz;es;ru;zh] have argued that Objectivist epistemology conflates the perceptual process by which judgments are formed with the way in which they are to be justified, thereby leaving it unclear how sensory data can validate judgments structured propositionally.[49][50]
Objectivism includes an extensive treatment of ethical concerns. Rand wrote on morality in her worksWe the Living (1936),Atlas Shrugged (1957) andThe Virtue of Selfishness (1964). Rand defines morality as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life".[51] Rand maintained that the first question is not what should the code of values be, the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible", and "the fact that a living entityis, determines what itought to do".[52] Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. [...] It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death".
Rand argued that the primary emphasis of man'sfree will is the choice: 'to think or not to think'. "Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one's consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality—or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make."[53] According to Rand, therefore, possessing free will, human beings mustchoose their values: one does notautomatically have one's own life as his ultimate value. Whether in fact a person's actions promote and fulfill his own life or not is a question of fact, as it is with all other organisms, but whether a person will act to promote his well-being is up to him, not hard-wired into his physiology. "Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history."[54]
InAtlas Shrugged, Rand wrote "Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch—or build a cyclotron—without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think."[55] In her novels,The Fountainhead andAtlas Shrugged, she also emphasizes the importance of productive work, romantic love and art to human happiness, and dramatizes the ethical character of their pursuit. The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics isrationality, as Rand meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action".[56]
The purpose of a moral code, Rand said, is to provide the principles by reference to which man can achieve the values his survival requires.[57] Rand summarizes:
If [man] chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. Reality confronts a man with a great many "must's", but all of them are conditional: the formula of realistic necessity is: "you must, if –" and the if stands for man's choice: "if you want to achieve a certain goal".[58]
Rand's explanation of values presents the proposition that an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to obey a moral code.[59]Ethical egoism is a corollary of setting man's life as the moral standard.[60] Rand believed that rational egoism is thelogical consequence of humans following evidence to its logical conclusion. The only alternative would be that they live without orientation to reality.
A corollary to Rand's endorsement of self-interest is her rejection of theethical doctrine of altruism—which she defined in the sense ofAuguste Comte's altruism (he popularized the term[61]), as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. Rand also rejected subjectivism. A "whim-worshiper" or "hedonist", according to Rand, is not motivated by a desire to live his own human life, but by a wish to live on a sub-human level. Instead of using "that which promotes my (human) life" as his standard of value, he mistakes "that which I (mindlessly happen to) value" for a standard of value, in contradiction of the fact that, existentially, he is a human and therefore rational organism. The "I value" in whim-worship or hedonism can be replaced with "we value", "he values", "they value", or "God values", and still, it would remain dissociated from reality. Rand repudiated the equation of rational selfishness with hedonistic or whim-worshiping "selfishness-without-a-self". She said that the former is good, and the latter bad, and that there is a fundamental difference between them.[62]
For Rand, all of the principalvirtues are applications of the role of reason as man's basic tool of survival: rationality, honesty, justice, independence, integrity, productiveness, and pride—each of which she explains in some detail in "The Objectivist Ethics".[63] The essence of Objectivist ethics is summarized by the oath herAtlas Shrugged character John Galt adhered to: "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."[64]
Some philosophers have criticized Objectivist ethics. The philosopherRobert Nozick argues that Rand's foundational argument in ethics is unsound because it does not explain why someone could not rationally prefer dying and having no values, in order to further some particular value. He argues that her attempt to defend the morality of selfishness is, therefore, an instance ofbegging the question. Nozick also argues that Rand's solution toDavid Hume's famousis-ought problem is unsatisfactory. In response, the philosophersDouglas B. Rasmussen andDouglas Den Uyl have argued that Nozick misstated Rand's case.[65][66]
Charles King criticized Rand's example of an indestructible robot to demonstrate the value of life as incorrect and confusing.[67] In response, Paul St. F. Blair defended Rand's ethical conclusions, while maintaining that his arguments might not have been approved by Rand.[68]
Rand's defense of individual liberty integrates elements from her entire philosophy.[69] Since reason is the means of human knowledge, it is therefore each person's most fundamental means of survival and is necessary to the achievement of values.[70] The use or threat offorce neutralizes the practical effect of an individual's reason, whether the force originates from the state or from a criminal. According to Rand, "man's mind will not function at the point of a gun".[71] Therefore, the only type of organized human behavior consistent with the operation of reason is that of voluntary cooperation. Persuasion is the method of reason. By its nature, the overtly irrational cannot rely on the use of persuasion and must ultimately resort to force to prevail.[72] Thus, Rand argued that reason and freedom are correlates, just as she argued that mysticism and force are corollaries.[73] Based on this understanding of the role of reason, Objectivists claim that the initiation of physical force against the will of another is immoral,[74] as are indirect initiations of force through threats,[75] fraud,[76] or breach of contract.[77] The use of defensive or retaliatory force, on the other hand, is appropriate.[78]
Objectivism claims that because the opportunity to use reason without the initiation of force is necessary to achieve moral values, each individual has an inalienable moralright to act as his own judgment directs and to keep the product of his effort. Peikoff, explaining the basis of rights, stated, "In content, as the founding fathers recognized, there is one fundamental right, which has several major derivatives. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its major derivatives are the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness."[79] "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context."[80] These rights are specifically understood to be rights to action, not to specific results or objects, and the obligations created by rights are negative in nature: each individual must refrain from violating the rights of others.[81] Objectivists reject alternative notions of rights, such aspositive rights,[82]collective rights, oranimal rights.[83] Objectivism claims that the only social system which fully recognizes individual rights is capitalism,[84] specifically what Rand described as "full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism".[85] Objectivism regards capitalism as the social system which is most beneficial to the poor, but does not consider this its primary justification.[86] Rather, it is the only moral social system. Objectivism maintains that only societies seeking to establish freedom (or free nations) have a right toself-determination.[87]
Objectivism describes government as "the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws"; thus, government is both legitimate and critically important[88] in order to protect individual rights.[89] Rand opposedanarchism because she considered that putting police and courts on the market is an inherent miscarriage ofjustice.[90] Objectivism claims that the proper functions of a government are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws", theexecutive, andlegislatures.[91] Furthermore, in protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rightsdelegated to it by the citizens"[92] and it must act in an impartial manner according to specific, objectively defined laws.[93]
Rand argued that limitedintellectual property monopolies being granted to certain inventors and artists on a first-to-file basis are moral because she considered all property as fundamentally intellectual. Furthermore, the value of a commercial product derives in part from the necessary work of its inventors. However, Rand considered limits on patents and copyrights as important and said that if they were granted in perpetuity, it would necessarily result inde facto collectivism.
Rand opposedracism and any legal application of racism. She consideredaffirmative action to be an example of legal racism.[94] Rand advocated the right to legalabortion.[95] Rand believedcapital punishment is morally justified as retribution against a murderer, but dangerous due to the risk of mistakenly executing innocent people and facilitating state murder. She therefore said she opposed capital punishment "on epistemological, not moral, grounds".[96] She opposed involuntarymilitary conscription.[97] She opposed any form ofcensorship, including legal restrictions onpornography,opinion orworship, famously quipping; "In the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with a given right's least attractive practitioners".[98][99]
Objectivists have also opposed a number of government activities commonly endorsed by both liberals and conservatives, includingantitrust laws,[100] theminimum wage,public education,[101] and existingchild labor laws.[102] Objectivists have argued againstfaith-based initiatives,[103] displaying religious symbols in government facilities,[104] and the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools.[105] Rand opposed involuntarytaxation and believed government could be financed voluntarily, although she thought this could only happen after other reforms of government were implemented.[106][107]
Some critics, including economists and political philosophers such asMurray Rothbard,David D. Friedman,Roy Childs,Norman P. Barry, andChandran Kukathas, have argued that Objectivist ethics are consistent withanarcho-capitalism instead ofminarchism.[108][109][110][111][112]
The Objectivist theory ofart derives from its epistemology, by way of "psycho-epistemology" (Rand's term for an individual's characteristic mode of functioning in acquiring knowledge). Art, according to Objectivism, serves a human cognitive need: it allows human beings to understand concepts as though they werepercepts. Objectivism defines "art" as a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments"—that is, according to what the artist believes to be ultimately true and important about the nature of reality and humanity. In this respect Objectivism regards art as a way of presenting abstractions concretely, in perceptual form.[113]
The human need for art, according to this idea, derives from the need for cognitive economy. A concept is already a sort of mental shorthand standing for a large number of concretes, allowing a human being to think indirectly or implicitly of many more such concretes than can be kept explicitly in mind. But a human being cannot keep indefinitely many concepts explicitly in mind either—and yet, according to Objectivism, they need a comprehensive conceptual framework to provide guidance in life. Art offers a way out of this dilemma by providing a perceptual, easily grasped means of communicating and thinking about a wide range of abstractions, including one's metaphysical value-judgments. Objectivism regards art as an effective way to communicate a moral or ethical ideal.[114] Objectivism does not, however, regard art as propagandistic: even though art involves moral values and ideals, its purpose is not to educate, only to show or project. Moreover, art need not be, and usually is not, the outcome of a full-blown, explicit philosophy. Usually, it stems from an artist'ssense of life (which is preconceptual and largely emotional).[115]
The end goal of Rand's own artistic endeavors was to portray the ideal man.The Fountainhead is the best example of this effort.[116] Rand uses the character of Roark to embody the concept of the higher man which she believes is what great art should do—embody the characteristics of the best of humanity. This symbolism should be represented in all art; artistic expression should be an extension of the greatness in humanity.
Rand said thatRomanticism was the highest school of literary art, noting that Romanticism was "based on the recognition of the principle that man possesses the faculty of volition", absent which, Rand believed, literature is robbed of dramatic power, adding:
What the Romanticists brought to art was theprimacy of values... Values are the source of emotions: a great deal of emotional intensity was projected in the work of the Romanticists and in the reactions of their audiences, as well as a great deal of color, imagination, originality, excitement, and all the other consequences of a value-oriented view of life.[117]
The term "romanticism", however, is often affiliated with emotionalism, to which Objectivism is completely opposed. Historically, many romantic artists were philosophicallysubjectivist. Most Objectivists who are also artists subscribe to what they termromantic realism, which is how Rand described her own work.[118]
Several authors have developed and applied Rand's ideas in their own work. Rand described Peikoff'sThe Ominous Parallels (1982), as "the first book by an Objectivist philosopher other than myself".[119] During 1991, Peikoff publishedObjectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, a comprehensive exposition of Rand's philosophy.[120]Chris Matthew Sciabarra discusses Rand's ideas and theorizes about their intellectual origins inAyn Rand: The Russian Radical (1995). Surveys such asOn Ayn Rand byAllan Gotthelf (1999),Ayn Rand byTibor R. Machan (2000), andObjectivism in One Lesson byAndrew Bernstein (2009) provide briefer introductions to Rand's ideas.
Some scholars have emphasized applying Objectivism to more specific areas. Machan has developed Rand's contextual conception of human knowledge (while also drawing on the insights ofJ. L. Austin andGilbert Harman) in works such asObjectivity (2004), andDavid Kelley has explicated Rand's epistemological ideas in works such asThe Evidence of the Senses (1986) andA Theory of Abstraction (2001). Regarding the topic of ethics, Kelley has argued in works such asUnrugged Individualism (1996) andThe Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (2000) that Objectivists should pay more attention to the virtue of benevolence and place less emphasis on issues of moral sanction. Kelley's claims have been controversial, and critics Peikoff andPeter Schwartz have argued that he contradicts important principles of Objectivism.[5][121] Kelley has used the term "Open Objectivism" for a version of Objectivism that involves "a commitment to reasoned, non-dogmatic discussion and debate", "the recognition that Objectivism is open to expansion, refinement, and revision", and "a policy of benevolence toward others, including fellow-travelers and critics".[122] Arguing against Kelley, Peikoff characterized Objectivism as a "closed system" that is not subject to change.[5]
An author who emphasizes Rand's ethics,Tara Smith, retains more of Rand's original ideas in such works asMoral Rights and Political Freedom (1995),Viable Values (2000), andAyn Rand's Normative Ethics (2006).[123] In collaboration with Peikoff, David Harriman has developed a theory ofscientificinduction based upon Rand's theory of concepts inThe Logical Leap: Induction in Physics (2010).[124]
Thepolitical aspects of Rand's philosophy are discussed by Bernstein inThe Capitalist Manifesto (2005). InCapitalism: A Treatise on Economics (1996),George Reisman attempts to integrate Objectivist methodology and insights with bothClassical andAustrian economics. In psychology, ProfessorEdwin A. Locke and Ellen Kenner have explored Rand's ideas in the publicationThe Selfish Path to Romance: How to Love with Passion & Reason.[125] Other writers have explored the application of Objectivism to fields ranging fromart, as inWhat Art Is (2000) by Louis Torres andMichelle Marder Kamhi, toteleology, as inThe Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts (1990) byHarry Binswanger.
One Rand biographer says most people who read Rand's works for the first time do it in their "formative years".[126] Rand's former protégéNathaniel Branden referred to Rand's "especially powerful appeal to the young",[127] whileOnkar Ghate [eo;sq] of theAyn Rand Institute said Rand "appeals to the idealism of youth".[128] This appeal has alarmed a number of critics of the philosophy.[129] Many of these young people later abandon their positive opinion of Rand and are often said to have "outgrown" her ideas.[130] Endorsers of Rand's work recognize the phenomenon, but attribute it to the loss of youthful idealism and inability to resistsocial pressures for intellectualconformity.[128][130] In contrast, historianJennifer Burns, writing inGoddess of the Market (2009), writes some critics "dismiss Rand as a shallow thinker appealing only to adolescents", although she thinks the critics "miss her significance" as a "gateway drug" toright-wing politics.[131]
Academic philosophers have generally dismissed Objectivism since Rand first presented it.[6] Objectivism has been termed "fiercely anti-academic" because of Rand's criticism of contemporary intellectuals.[4]David Sidorsky, a professor of moral and political philosophy at Columbia University, writes that Rand's work is "outside the mainstream" and is more of anideology than a comprehensive philosophy.[132] British philosopherTed Honderich notes that he deliberately excluded an article on Rand fromThe Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Rand is, however, mentioned in the article on popular philosophy byAnthony Quinton).[133] Rand is the subject of entries in theStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[2]The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers,[134] theInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[135]The Routledge Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Political Thinkers,[136] andThe Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy.[137] Chandran Kukathas writes in an entry about Rand in theRoutledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The influence of Rand's ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers." Kukathas also writes that her defenses of capitalism and selfishness "kept her out of the intellectual mainstream".[110]
During the 1990s, Rand's works were more likely to be encountered in American classrooms.[4] The Ayn Rand Society, dedicated to fostering the scholarly study of Objectivism, is affiliated with theAmerican Philosophical Association's Eastern Division.[138]Aristotle scholar and ObjectivistAllan Gotthelf, late chairman of the society, and his colleagues argued for more academic study of Objectivism, considering the philosophy as a unique and intellectually interesting defense ofclassical liberalism that is worth debating.[139] In 1999, a refereedJournal of Ayn Rand Studies began.[140] Programs and fellowships for the study of Objectivism have been supported at the University of Pittsburgh,University of Texas at Austin andUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[141]
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
