The Objectivist Philosophy & An Analogy With Darwinism

The question is sometimes raised, “What beliefs should carry the label ‘Objectivism’ and who should call themselves ‘Objectivists’?”

The concerns are that if Objectivism is too broadly defined, then individuals will come up with ideas that clearly depart from the philosophy but will label their thinking “Objectivism” and themselves “Objectivists.” As a result, our attempts to spread the philosophy will be undermined by the confusion this might create for the general public and public intellectuals.

Let’s draw out the issues and the implications of these concerns.

One can assert that the philosophy developed by Ayn Rand is Objectivism and that those who work to expand that philosophy—Peikoff, Kelley, and many others—can say that their work is based on Objectivism and, they believe, is consistent with Objectivism.

But one might argue that because their beliefs were not developed or explicitly endorsed by Rand, that the unique insights of Peikoff, Kelley, et al. should not be considered as part of the Objectivist philosophy.

From this perspective one can ask, will the term “Objectivism” be relegated to an antiquarian niche? Consider the analogy with Darwinian evolution.

The Example of Darwin

Darwin postulated a handful of simple principles—natural selection that, in certain environments, favors individuals that have certain random genetic changes—to explain the origin of species, a view contrary to the Biblical creationist explanation of that time. But even during his own lifetime, Darwin’s understanding of how evolution worked was evolving.

After his death, other discoveries concerning the nature of genetic mutation and an expanded fossil record shed further light on Darwin’s general approach and in fact showed it to be a particularly powerful means by which to understand the origin of species.

So is it legitimate for those who, after Darwin’s death, believe that Darwin presented a basically correct description for how life evolved and who accept the truth of new scientific discoveries made after his death that are consistent with the principles he postulated to call themselves “Darwinists?” It would seem so. Otherwise all would have to call themselves “Darwinists-plus” or something else. Since knowledge about evolution has grown since Darwin’s death, presumably the term “Darwinist” would be frozen in time and no one today could call themselves “Darwinists.”

It seems then that by analogy, those—Peikoff, Kelley—who accept the basic principles of Objectivism, the philosophy developed by Ayn Rand, can legitimately call themselves “Objectivists.”

Subdivided Schools of Thought

Some raise the question about whether Objectivists should label their own extensions of the philosophy that they believe are consistent with and even integral to the philosophy by the term “Objectivism.” Again we can turn to the analogy with “Darwinism” to look at the use of labels for schools of thought.

“Darwinism” originally differentiated those who believed that life evolved from those who believed that it was created by a god. During Darwin’s lifetime an alternative school arose that accepted that species evolved but through a very different mechanism than that postulated by Darwin. This “Lamarckian” school rejected generic mutation as the mechanism driving evolution, maintaining instead that characteristics that individual organisms acquire through their own behavior—strong muscles developed through exercise—could be passed on to descendents. Because this school of thought rejected a fundamental premise of Darwinism, it was right that it be distinguished with its own label. (Later scientific discoveries have disproved the Lamarckian approach.)

Today, in light of new fossil evidence and discoveries, new questions and debates concerning evolution have arisen. For example, in recent decades Stephen J. Gould postulated what is described as a “punctuated equilibrium” view that holds that evolution is not a smooth process but proceeds in fits and starts. This view is opposed by anthropologist Richard Dawkins and others. It is still an open question concerning which view is correct or whether both views contain elements of truth.

But we are right to classify both the Gould and Dawkins schools of thought as “Darwinism” because both—unlike Lamarckianism—accept the basic principles of the theory and are not inconsistent with the theory’s principles. Perhaps some day the views of these schools will diverge so sharply that they will deserve special names.

Similarly, the “Big Bang” theory of cosmology for decades offered a particular explanation for astronomical observations and could be contrasted with the “Steady State” theory. They offered very different explanations for observations. Later discoveries showed this latter theory to be wrong; it has no adherents today.

Today there are debates within the Big Bang understanding of the origins of the universe concerning whether or not it started with an “inflationary” burst and soon slowed down. But adherents and opponents of this approach are still labeled as Big Bang advocates.

There are also debates about the underlying mechanisms driving the expansion of the universe. A “dark energy” explanation might still fit as an extension of the Big Bang approach. But a “String Theory” model that postulates multiple “universes” deserves its own label, since it rejects basic Big Bang assumptions.

We can find similar divisions and labels in other areas of knowledge, for example, within Austrian and the Chicago schools of economics.

Thus when we ask what set of beliefs should carry the label “Objectivism,” we must look first to acceptance of basic principles.

One Objectivism for Now

I would argue by analogy that we can say that Peikoff and Kelley, ARI and The Atlas Society all promote Objectivism. All accept the basic principles by which Rand defined the philosophy.

We can also recognize legitimate discussions and debates within Objectivism. Such exchanges cause no confusion in scholarly or scientific circles. After all, this is how knowledge is acquired and advanced in other disciplines. While we should be concerned first and foremost with the truth of new postulates and whether they are necessary parts of an Objectivist understanding of the world, we should not as such be concerned to keep the definition of Objectivism “pure” any more than a Darwinist worries about whether he is teaching “pure” Darwinism.

Are there any other schools of thought or inquiry in which its thinkers are concerned chiefly with preserving the ideas exactly as understood by the school’s founder or leading lights? Religious adherents and blind ideologues ask, “What is true Christianity, Islam or Communism and who is a true Christian, Muslim or Communist?” But those who seek knowledge through a rational process do not. Anthropologists are not concerned about who are the “true” Darwinists. They're concerned about the truth.

But what of Kelley’s thinking on benevolence or Peikoff's on his DIM hypothesis? Surely it is an open question whether these views are consistent with or should be considered a necessary part of Objectivism? And for purposes of pride of ownership if nothing else, surely Peikoff, Kelley and others would want their extensions of the Objectivist philosophy to be recognized as theirs and would not maintain that Ayn Rand herself said these things.

Objectivist thinkers will continue to be challenged by the need to reconcile the philosophy with new advances in knowledge. For example, research in evolutionary psychology and brain science raise questions about free will, the extent to which the mind is “tabula rasa,” and the like. From what I’ve seen such new knowledge is consistent with Objectivism and points to the subtlety of Rand’s insights.

It could be that in the future some Objectivists might conclude that the philosophy is incorrect in some crucial element, for example, the nature of free will. In that case it would be right to distinguish those individuals with a new label, perhaps “neo-Objectivists.”

Who Decides?

But who decides which new information or discoveries are consistent with Objectivism or should be considered part of Objectivism?

Issues about Objectivism should be settled in the same manner that issues are settled in other rational pursues of knowledge. They should be settled by discussions, by exchanges of information, by conferences, panels, debates in journals and the like. And it is reality, not majority opinion, that will be the final arbiter.

Mature individuals understand that only religions and unquestioned ideologies attempt to march in lock step and that it is not to be expected that there will be 100% agreement on every detail between individuals within intellectual movements or schools or between their adherents. The notion of warring “camps” in the case of Objectivism is the reason why the philosophy has not been more widely accepted.

If we want to advance Objectivism, our chief concern should not be that honest disagreements between serious thinkers in the philosophy will somehow tarnish us; the closed practices of the past have already done that. We should not treat personal differences like philosophical differences or vise versa.

It is time for all of us to follow the principles of Objectivism and act in a collegial rather than confrontational manner in exploring and promoting the philosophy that we all hold true.