ASK THE ACADEMY Better Living Resource Center Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs Ask the Academy Main Index
Click Here for New & Used College Textbooks at Discount Prices Click Here for College Education Information & Study Resources Shop Amazon Stores in the Radical Academy Bookstore Magazine Outlet Music Store Classical Music Store Video Store DVD Store Computer Store Camera & Photo Store Computer/Video Games Software Store Musical Instruments Outlet Store Cellular Phones Toys & Games Tools & Hardware Automotive Store Outdoor Living Consumer Electronics Home & Garden Kitchen & Housewares Baby Superstore Apparel & Accessories Gourmet Food Grocery Store Sporting Goods Jewelry & Watches Health & Personal Care Beauty Store		March 1, 2005 In the February issue of our Ezine of Applied Philosophy, Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty made the following statement: I first became acquainted with Rand's work when my parents gave me a hard-bound copy of Atlas Shrugged for my 25th birthday. Already possessing a degree in philosophy and proudly declaring myself to be an Aristotelian, I found an affinity with Rand's thought, particularly in epistemology, ethics, and political philosophy. Furthermore, I was basically a "libertarian," although that term was not in popular use at the time. I continued to study Rand's philosophy -- which she called "Objectivism" -- and read virtually all her published works. I was profoundly influenced by Rand, although later I became strongly critical of Objectivism and its lack of a complete and coherent metaphysics, its lack of an adequate philosophy of man and philosophy of nature, and especially its blatant atheism. Be that as it may, Rand should be considered one of America's great writers and philosophers, even though she and her thought are ignored in academic departments of literature and philosophy. The Academy received the following request via e-mail from Bill McL. soon afterward: In the February 2005 of the Ezine of Applied Philosophy, you wrote that you "became strongly critical of Objectivism and its lack of a complete and coherent metaphysics, its lack of an adequate philosophy of man and philosophy of nature, and its blatant atheism." Can you please elaborate. Thank you. Dr. Dolhenty replies: I consider this an important inquiry, Bill, and here is my reply. First, let me say that, in general, I agree with most of Objectivism's basic premises, at least to the extent that those premises are in accord with the tradition of Classical Realism as presented in an updated Aristotelianism. Then let me also say that my remarks about Objectivism in my Ezine statement referred to "original" Objectivism, as currently presented by Ayn Rand's now "intellectual heir," Dr. Leonard Peikoff, who was a founder of The Ayn Rand Institute. But Peikoff is not the only promoter or interpreter of Objectivism. Dr. David Kelley, who, I understand, was literally "excommunicated" from the Objectivist "movement" by Peikoff, began the Institute for Objectivist Studies, now The Objectivist Center, and presents a more "open-ended" view of Rand's philosophy, while Peikoff allegedly maintains that Objectivism is a "closed" system and Rand's writings the only "bibles" to be included within the philosophical canon of Objectivism (except for his own, of course). According to Dr. Nathaniel Branden, who was Rand's "real" original intellectual heir (her major work, Atlas Shrugged, was dedicated to him) and who was subsequently "excommunicated" from the Objectivist movement by Rand herself, has written about this dispute between Peikoff and Kelley: For some time there has been dispute over the question of whether Objectivism is a "open system" or a "closed system." More specifically, the debate has been whether Objectivism is a philosophical system that can be refined, expanded on, amplified, and applied in new directions by those who share its basic premises or whether Objectivism is confined exclusively to the positions propounded by Ayn Rand during her lifetime. (Who is an Objectivist?, by Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D.)   Here, my purpose is to draw attention to the historical evidence that lends support to the claim of David Kelley and others that Objectivism is and must be "an open system." (Who Owns Objectivism?, by Nathaniel Branden) Suffice to say, I am more in tune with Kelley's and Branden's interpretation of Objectivism. I don't think there are any "closed" philosophical systems, including those within the tradition of Classical Realism, because new knowledge will always be discovered (or uncovered) and old knowledge is always subject to reinterpretation. I have some real concerns, however, about some of the "traditional" views of Objectivism, particularly those related to the existence of the universe as a whole. I have expressed one such concern already in a brief article entitled Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism?. I have received no reply (that I know of) to that concern from anyone who is an Objectivist. Furthermore, I can find no complete statement of the metaphysics of Objectivism, although I have found many statements or propositions issued by writers who claim to be Objectivists, usually spread throughout a discussion of other topics. In other words, I can make some inferences about Objectivism's metaphysical views, but have found no systematized account which could be considered a completed work. (Please understand, there may be one out there and I have just not found it yet.) Regarding the philosophy of man (or philosophical psychology/anthropology), I think that Ayn Rand spent more time "romanticizing" human nature (or man) in a "literary" sense than she did "analyzing" man in a "philosophical" sense. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this per se. But the "literary" and the "philosophical" are two discrete categories of analysis. There is a discussion of man (Chapter 6) in Peikoff's seminal work, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, but it seems to simply make statements to be accepted as facts, rather than presenting a formal argument to support the propositions proffered. For an excellent critique and review of Peikoff's book, with which I mostly agree, see Peikoff's Summa, by David Kelley. I said in my Ezine remarks that Objectivism lacks an adequate philosophical psychology -- at least at this point. Dr. Nathaniel Branden, Rand's most celebrated student, who is a trained psychologist, has stated: I have already mentioned that there is one great missing element in the objectivist system, namely, a theory of psychology, or, more precisely, an understanding of psychology. Rand held the view that human beings can be understood exclusively in terms of their premises, that is, in terms of their basic philosophical beliefs, along with their free will choices. This view is grossly inadequate to the complexity of the actual facts. It is, further, a view that flies totally in the face of so much that we know today about how the mind operates. (The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement, by Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D.) Moreover, according to Branden, ... she knew next to nothing about psychology. What neither of us understood, however, was how disastrous an omission that is in a philosopher in general and a moralist in particular. The most devastating single omission in her system and the one that causes most of the trouble for her followers is the absence of any real appreciation of human psychology and, more specifically, of developmental psychology, of how human beings evolve and become what they are and of how they can change. One particular point emphasized within Objectivism's general philosophy of man seems to go too far, in my opinion, if my interpretation of what is being argued is correct. One gets a sense that Rand maintains that the human individual is fundamentally "autonomous," a view that can lead one toward an unjustified "extreme" individualism. The word "autonomous" can be tricky here. The individual human being has, to be sure, an "independent" existence in the sense of being "bodily" separate from other human beings. But that does not mean that the individual human being is "autonomous" in the sense that he or she has "created" himself or herself either socially or culturally. Human beings are initially dependent upon a society or culture to provide them with a language through which they can form ideas and communicate, and provide them with all the other features necessary to become fully functional human beings. In my interpretation of Objectivism, this social and cultural context is de-emphasized to the point of being either ignored or discarded altogether. While it is certainly true that society exists for the benefit of the individual, and not the other way around, it is also true that the individual is, to some degree, the "product" of the society or culture in which that individual is reared. The very language one learns as a child does have some influence on the way in which the environment surrounding the child is perceived and interpreted. Furthermore, there is a "relationship" between the individual and society which transcends mere geometry or extrinsic relationship, and especially in certain objectively identifiable circumstances. Consider the following points made by Objectivist philosopher Nathaniel Branden regarding the individual and society and Rand's lack of understanding about the total context: Many factors contribute to who we become as human beings: our genes, our maturation, our unique biological potentials and limitations, our life experiences and the conclusions we draw from them, the knowledge and information available to us, and, of course, our premises or philosophical beliefs, and the thinking we choose to do or not to do. And even this list is an oversimplification. The truth, is we are far from understanding everything that goes into shaping the persons we become, and it is arrogant and stupid to imagine that we do.   One of the unfortunate consequences of this over simplification is that most students of objectivism are pathetically helpless when faced with the task of carrying their ideas into the real world and seeking to implement them. They do not know what to do, most of the time. Objectivism has not prepared them. There is too much about the real world, about social and political institutions, and about human psychology, of which they have no knowledge.   Given that we live in society, and given that misfortune or tragedy can strike any one of us, it is clearly in our self-interest to live in a world in which human beings deal with one another in a spirit of mutual benevolence and helpfulness. Could anyone seriously argue that the principle of mutual aid does not have survival value? All the above statements are passim in The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement, by Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D. With regard to Objectivism's philosophy of nature or inanimate objects (or "cosmology," as we sometimes call it in Classical Realism), let me say that it appears to be nonexistent in Objectivism at this point in time. It seems that Ayn Rand was not particularly interested in the natural or physical sciences, a serious flaw in any philosophy which claims to be "comprehensive." Branden says: With regard to science, this led to an odd kind of scientific conservatism, a suspicion of novelty, an indifference ... to anything more recent than the work of Sir Isaac Newton. And, in regard specifically to the theory (or hypothesis) of evolution, for instance, ... there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable. The above quotes are also in The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement, by Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D. These, briefly, are just a few of the concerns I have with the philosophy of Objectivism as presented by Peikoff and, I assume, by Ayn Rand herself. But a more serious concern, for many of us who may be more or less sympathetic toward Objectivism, is that Objectivism, which wants to be accepted as a serious "Philosophy," appears, at least under the Peikoff banner, to be well on its way to becoming a quasi-religious cult, rather than a comprehensive, growing, evolving, and dynamic world-view. As one Objectivist commentator stated on the Internet: ... Leonard Peikoff is no Ayn Rand, or John Galt. The question is, would he even qualify as Eddie Willers? The man is becoming a giant embarrassment to Objectivism. He screws up constantly. He is simply unable to apply the philosophy of Objectivism to real-world situations. His radio talk show was just about the worst possible format for the man. (Leonard Peikoff: Who Needs Him?) And writer Chris Wolf, himself an enthusiast for Objectivism, has discussed some of the issues affecting contemporary Objectivism very succinctly in his essay entitled What's REALLY Wrong With Objectivism? It's worth a serious read. Now, regarding the final issue to be addressed: Ayn Rand's atheism. I can only, at this point in time, make some very brief comments about this, as I am in the process of writing an essay which deals with the existence of a First Cause or Intelligent Creator (or whatever one wants to call it), and I am not prepared to go into detail about my views now. That said, I find Rand's atheism to be understandable (considering her background and personal experience), but unacceptable (considering her concern with "understanding" reality). In my opinion, there is no need to suppose a "supernatural" realm of existence in order to suggest that the universe has a creator and sustainer. It could be that the "First Cause" is, in fact, part of the "natural" realm of existence, but not "of it." This is not theology or religion, of course, but it is philosophy. And I am not interested in theology or religion at this time; I am interested in what traditionally has been called the "philosopher's God." I will leave theological matters to those who want to deal with them. Rand dismisses any discussion of theism by branding theistic propositions as "mystical" or "irrational." Here she is terribly in error, and she should have known it. First, theism, if discussed as a source of "knowledge" through the means of revelation, is not "irrational." It is "non-rational." And this distinction is important. Second, Rand had no understanding of what "mystical" or "mysticism" really meant, since she had never studied the topic (See: The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement, by Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D.) This is not an argument against her argument, but simply to point out that she either dismissed something as irrelevant because she had not done her research or considered it unimportant, although branding it with an epithet and dismissing its import out of hand. Something serious philosophers really should not do. Rand also states that God does not exist because no proof can be provided that He does. This is a logical fallacy. Simply because no "proof" if available now about some phenomenon does not mean that no proof will become available later. She should have known better than to present this argument, considering her demand that logic and rationality are essential and necessary parts of her philosophy. And, in my view at this time, there is no "proof" that God exists, at least philosophically, but there is a "web of evidence" that certainly is favorable toward the existence of some intelligent being as the necessary cause of that which exists. I don't want to dwell any more on this matter at this time since I am still working out my theory of "TheoDynamics" which addresses the question of an Intelligent Designer within a "natural" reality as the creator and sustainer of the universe, within a strictly philosophical perspective (of course). More about that later. -- Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Academy Showcase Specials Ask the Academy Main Index
-- Top of Page -- [Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer] Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, & 2004-05 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.