Phil Elmore: Individual Authoring Services

Rogue Objectivist: My Refusal to Align
By Phil Elmore

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, was once an increasingly influential movement within American culture. The beginning of its decline in influence was marked by the first Great Schism of Objectivism: the expulsion of Nathaniel Branden, who was Rand's most accomplished student at the time. Branden's organization, which promoted Objectivism, was disbanded. (Branden's crime revolved around the somewhat sordid tale of past sexual affairs with Rand and a current affair with a younger woman; his betrayal of the woman with whom he betrayed his marriage vows to Barbara Branden enraged Rand, prompting Branden's denunciation and expulsion from Objectivism.)

Eventually, Leonard Peikoff was designated by Rand as heir to her estate, as well as her "intellectual heir." As head of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), he has continued the tradition of "excommunicating" from the Objectivist movement those who disagree with him over the interpretation and application of Rand's philosophy. The primary denominational split in Objectivism today is between those affiliated with Peikoff's ARI and those who side with excommunicated member David Kelley.

Kelley was expelled after disagreeing with Peikoff over the question of moral sanction. Peripherally, the two disagree on the nature of the philosophy of Objectivism itself. Is it an open or closed system? Kelley says that a philosophy must be an open system if it is to fully develop to cover those ideas not addressed by its creator, not to mention to correct errors made by its original author. (Objectivism as a philosophy, after all, was not invented, but discovered. Any philosophy that claims to stem from the application of reason to the facts of objective reality must necessarily be a discovery of truth, rather than the creation of something previously unknown.) Peikoff believes that Objectivism -- or any philosophy, for that matter -- is closed, with a specific body of work defining and delineating it, and with which any subsequent thought must be in complete agreement if it is to be within the bounds of the philosophy.

Kelley formed The Objectivist Center (TOC, formerly the Institute for Objectivist Studies) to spread his interpretation of the philosophy. Objectivists today are faced with the question of with whom to align: Peikoff's ARI, or Kelley's TOC? The two camps wage electronic warfare on the Internet. Kelley's supporters tend to despise Peikoff as a dogmatic, mediocre intrinsicist who treats Objectivism like a religion and believes himself to be its Pope. "Orthodox" supporters of ARI believe Kelley's interpretation corrupts the philosophy of Objectivism, grants tacit if not explicit support to Objectivism's ideological enemies in the name of "toleration," and generally harms the "quality" of the movement.

So where do I stand?

I don't know any of the parties personally. I've never attended an Objectivist seminar. I've never interacted with anyone affiliated with an Objectivist organization. And frankly, I don't care.

Philosophy is not a simple matter. Defining and refining your personal philosophy is complicated and time consuming. Yes, it would be comforting to know that there was one official Objectivist "party line" to which all Objectivists could refer in answering life's complicated philosophical questions. But there isn't, and there never will be; even the founder of a philosophy can make errors in applying the philosophical principles that founder discovers, for no human being is perfect and no individual applies reason and logic with utter, ruthless efficiency in absolutely all cases.

I must absorb the principles, ideas, and concepts contained within the body of Rand's work myself. I would be a fool to ignore commentary and criticism on her work. I would be blind to believe that Objectivism starts and ends with Rand's pen. No human being, however prolific, can address every idea, every issue, with which philosophy must contend. I must take what is useful from those who offer it, and attempt to integrate this material into my understanding of Rand's philosophy.

This long and demanding process has no room for petty bickering or personality conflicts. I have no time for Objectivism's denominational spats. I refuse to limit the field of knowledge and thought available to me by declaring out-of-bounds the work of one or another author. I will not align myself with a camp of Objectivists -- and I do not require any individual's permission to declare myself an Objectivist. A philosophy of reason and individualism hardly lends itself to loyalty tests from a central authority, despite the fact that this very phenomenon has characterized the movement thus far.

In the past I incorrectly characterized myself as a neo-Objectivist for daring to disagree with Peikoff and ARI (or, for that matter, with Kelley or any other Objectivist). I now know that such a label is not necessary. If I adhere to the principles of Objectivism to the best of my ability to interpret and apply them, I am an Objectivist. No person's opinion of my efforts will alter them.

If that makes me a "rogue Objectivist," so be it. My personal philosophy is no affair for others to judge. It is mine, and mine alone. Objectivists, of all people, should be able to understand that.