Objectivism in Context

Ayn Rand in New York City

With a clearer understanding from Sciabarra … Rand’s achievement becomes breathtaking in its comprehensiveness.”

A Review of Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical  by Chris Matthew Sciabarra (2 editions)

Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was a controversial novelist-philosopher, the founder of a new system of philosophy she called “Objectivism.”  She remarked, “I am challenging the cultural tradition of 2,500 years.”

The Provocative Book Title

1st Edition 1995

The title of Chris Matthew Sciabarra’s book is provocative, and Rand would have considered it insulting.  I’m sure Sciabarra did not mean to insult, but did mean to provoke interest.  Interest is good.

Born in St. Petersburg, Russia, Rand lived through the Russian Revolution and rise of the Soviets. She despised Russia and everything about it. Rand immigrated to the US and became a proud American citizen.

2nd Edition 2013

Rand considered herself a radical for capitalism, meaning free-market, laissez-fare capitalism as protected by a properly limited government (Capitalism the Unknown Ideal).  Her work included a revolutionary new concept of epistemology (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) and a new theory of ethics which rejects altruism (The Virtue of Selfishness) and is itself the foundation of Rand’s ideas on politics and art.

Most contemporary academic philosophers ignore Ayn Rand. To academia, the notion of a novelist-philosopher is unprecedented, even rude. The idea of an outsider inventing a philosophy that challenges everything since Thales is unacceptable to those inside the ivory towers.

Sciabarra’s Purpose

The purpose Sciabarra set is simple: “to provide an enriched appreciation of Ayn Rand’s contributions.”  Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical (ARTRR) first appeared in 1995. The second edition (2013), added biographical materials relating to Rand’s early training in philosophy and her college transcript.

Sciabarra’s admiration for Rand is evident.  He is storming the fortress of academic philosophy, by exploring how Ayn Rand’s thought relates to the academic philosophy that has thus far largely spurned her.

Purpose of the Review

My purpose in writing this review is to show the important ways in which Sciabarra succeeds. His work does increase the appreciation of Rand and spread interest in her and the values of Objectivism to the culture. I will also show how his perceptive questions are valuable in that they are questions crying for answers, even when Sciabarra’s own answers may provoke hostility.

The Scope of Rand’s Achievement

Simply put, Ayn Rand acknowledged only three previous philosophers — Plato, Aristotle and Kant. She acknowledged only Aristotle as an essential influence on her thinking.

Sciabarra takes strong exception to Rand’s own view of essential influences, declaring that there are important connections between Rand’s thought and that of her Russian teachers.

Clearly, thanks to Sciabarra, a fuller understanding of Rand emerges — not as merely a fourth giant among a great three, but as the one who saw through the lacks and mistakes of the hundreds of thinkers in the 2,500 years since the birth of philosophy.

Ayn Rand presented herself as a hero among three giants of thought. Sciabarra presents Rand as the hero among countless philosophers and writers.

The discrepancy between Rand’s view of her achievement and Sciabarra’s view of Rand is easy to explain. On the declaring of influences, Ayn Rand would have discarded as an influence, anyone whose basic premises were in contradiction to reality. Since of the three systems builders in the history of philosophy, only Aristotle based his thought on the primacy of reality, it is apropos that Aristotle is the only one Rand acknowledges.

However, for the student of the history of philosophy, Rand’s place among the top three as well as the hundreds of less important thinkers is not clear until one has the picture of the complexity of building a philosophical system, and the primacy of reality upon which to base it.

With a clearer understanding from Sciabarra of some of the methods employed, arguments, contradictions and failures over the centuries, Rand’s achievement becomes breathtaking in its comprehensiveness.

From my first reading in 1995 and again in 2017, I view the complex picture of philosophical exploration that emerges as the primary benefit of the book.

Ayn Rand’s Method vs the History of Philosophy

ARTRR includes a lengthy contrast of methods, principally dualism and the dialectic.

Sciabarra postulates that Ayn Rand’s method is consistent with her first encounters with philosophy in Russia where the influence of Marx dominated the philosophical landscape. Marx himself said that Aristotle was a dialectical thinker.

Ayn Rand did not directly address either dualism or the dialectic method in her epistemology. In her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, she started with active awareness and proceeded through cognition, consciousness, concepts, abstraction, definition, arriving at axiomatic concepts and identity.

Provocative Characterization of Rand’s Method

Sciabarra calls Rand’s method “dialectical libertarianism.” This designation takes considerable unpacking. It is important to mention that ARTRR is Sciabarra’s central book in a trilogy on this subject. Marx, Hayek, and Utopia is the opening book. Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism is the closing.

I find that the idea that Rand learned the dialectical method in Russia is a reasonable conclusion, but it is not a convincing label for Rand as a mature thinker. To be clear, I have not read Sciabarra’s full trilogy, and do not presume to speak to this idea in essence.

There is evidence that efforts to apply dialectical reasoning broadly have been in our culture for many years.  For example, after WWII in the late 1950s, school children, myself among them, learned about the war dialectically: there was Communism (hypothesis–noble, but doesn’t really work), Nazism (antithesis—repugnant, killed 6 million Jews) and liberal Democracy (synthesis–the practical good, free countries of Europe and the US).

Libertarianism is a loosely organized movement, professing the ideology of freedom. Ayn Rand specifically rejected libertarianism as a movement without philosophical foundation. Clearly, Rand would consider Sciabarra’s labeling of her method as “dialectical libertarianism” insulting to her life, work and memory, as well as being irrelevant to her accomplishment.

The question Sciabarra raises for me, which I find riveting, even revolutionary, is what is there about Rand’s method that allows her to disregard all the methods and their many variations, and still wind up with a complete, cogent and organic philosophical whole?

To my knowledge, no other book intended for the lay market has stimulated that question, framed as Sciabarra has done, specifically with the history of philosophy as the background.  The exploration of this question, which has interested me greatly, is the second most important benefit I have gleaned from ARTRR.

Ayn Rand as a Student at Petrograd State University

The new edition of ARTRR includes three appendices relating to Rand’s college education and the results of Sciabarra’s efforts to find, preserve and understand the historical facts of Ayn Rand’s introduction to philosophy as a student in Russia. Without Sciabarra’s efforts, this valuable information would otherwise have been lost.  This benefit of Sciabarra’s work is clearly priceless.

The Contention of “Open” Objectivism

The concept of objectivism refers to a number of loosely defined philosophical attitudes that say that reality is real and consists of everything outside of the mind.  The earlier manifestations of objectivism lack any cohesive theory or prominent theoretician.

No one is claiming that the concept of objectivism is closed – all concepts are open ended, as Rand herself pointed out. But Rand’s Objectivism is her specific work product. The law protects Rand’s work product under copyright until it comes into public domain.

By capitalizing the term for her system, Ayn Rand made Objectivism her “brand.” When modern scholars refer to “open” Objectivism, they refer specifically to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

For example, none of the admirers of Ayn Rand, including those favoring “open” objectivism would confuse Rand’s philosophy with “logical objectivism.” This is the idea that logical truth does not depend upon the contents of human ideas but exists independent of human ideas. The independence of ideas from the humans who have them is a variant of Platonism, which Rand rejected.

Webster’s dictionary defines “objectivism” as “any of various theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena over subjective experience.”  The American Heritage Dictionary goes somewhat further: “One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.”

In sum, I believe that Sciabarra comes down on the wrong side of the question of “Open” Objectivism when he declares Rand’s philosophy open.

However, the question is moot.  The genuine concern should be to answer the question of what will happen to Ayn Rand’s Objectivism when the copyright runs out.

Ayn Rand died in 1982, but her work lives on and her reputation is growing. How will history remember her? Will philosophy absorb Objectivism into the miscellany of variations purporting to be reality based, but actually founded on Platonic or Kantian principles? Will philosophy succeed in burying Objectivism entirely? Will Objectivism supplant the all the other objectivist theories and capture the ivory citadel as well as the culture?

In Conclusion

In the space of this review, my intention was to convey to the reader a taste of the immense context-expanding value I found in ARTRR.

Chris Matthew Sciabarra has rewarded me with a refined sense of the enormity of the task before us. Truly, despite my sometimes harsh sounding criticisms, I believe that Sciabarra, like myself is working and living by Ayn Rand’s principles, and has come not to bury her, but to praise her.

Independent thought and spirited discussion will be crucial elements in spreading Ayn Rand’s Objectivism to philosophy qua philosophy. Infighting, passion and controversy can be great incentives for the next generations to expand on philosophy’s unanswered questions.

Why the crisis of our age is not a moral crisis

In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand had gotten as deep as collectivism, the political result of altruism.  In Atlas Shrugged, she had gotten further and named altruism as the core anti-concept behind collectivism.

But to me, when I read Anthem, written in “the dark ages of the future,” as the book jacket above proclaims,  the genuine cause was most evident, even though it is not specifically named. For years this question haunted me: if altruism is so evil and the moral is the practical, what deeper mistake sustains altruism?

Answer: The refusal to face reality.

I have to admit, I didn’t get it the first time.

In Anthem, only Equality 7-2521 faces reality consistently and without fear. Rand’s opening words, “It is a sin to write this….” tells you immediately that the issue is not morality, but something deeper.

In other words, the hero, Equality 7–2521 is ignoring the sin (the morality he has been taught) because he knows something else is more important and contradicts it (reality). The story of Anthem is a coming-of-age story in which the morality of altruism is rejected because it contradicts real-world observations.

He discovers the nature of the contradiction when he re-invents electric light and tries to share its inestimable benefit with society and is forced to flee for his life.

From the point of view of human epistemology, Rand named three axioms in ITOE¹: existence, consciousness and identity. Something exists. It can be apprehended by consciousness. It has a nature.

However, when all three are named as axioms from the point of human consciousness, it is easy to make the same mistake that collectivists and altruists make: that the first two axioms are simultaneous, and the third is the product of applying the second to the first.

In reality, the nature of any thing in existence depends on existence — whether consciousness exists to identify it or not.

There is built up in human cultures world-wide the inability to acknowledge that the unknown and the unknowable are legitimate concepts which act as place holders for missing information because infallibility, omniscience and omnipotence is given to nothing and no one.

Instead people pretend to know, convince themselves and others that they do know, and spill oceans of blood to protect themselves from finding out that they don’t know. It is for this reason that I came to believe that the crisis of our age is deeper than the moral problem of altruism. It is actually an existential problem.

The Enlightenment was the period in human history when Man came closest to conquering his fears and fantasies. Kant is usually thought of as an Enlightenment philosopher, but he was the first of the anti-Enlightenment.

When you affirm A = A, that is an existential affirmation. When you say A = non-A, at the same time and in the same respect, that is a contradiction you can hold in your head only. To fail to resolve a contradiction is to embrace an error in thinking. To embrace an error in thinking is to hold emotion (fantasy or fear) above reality. To hold emotion as the controller of your mental processes is to abandon your nature as a rational being, your outlook as an efficacious being, and your potential as a happy being.

The problem of our age is existential, and until Objectivists recognize and focus on the fact that the existential mistake is the source of the power of altruism over people, I think we will continue to endure frustration and disappointment.


Notes:
¹Ayn Rand. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.  The Objectivist. New York. 1973.

Hello world!

Ilene Skeen

If you often feel that you know a whole bunch of stuff, but have trouble putting things together so you can act with confidence, you’ve come to the right place.

With me, you’ll do a lot of thinking about ideas, history, yourself and winning your place in the world.  My hope is to excite you to empower yourself to go after the good life with all the drive, dedication and energy you can muster.

The benefit to you will be an exciting,  fruitful and productive life — a life of which you can be justly proud.

I can only call things as I see them and understand them. I promise to do my best.


Coming Soon  

I believe in starting things from the beginning. For humans, life is the beginning and the philosophy of a happy, productive life begins with absolute knowledge of what life is.