Closed vs. Open Part 1: Introduction, and the Issues

Introduction

The dispute between the Objectivists who've sided with Leonard Peikoff and the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), and those who've sided with David Kelley and The Atlas Society (TAS), is a philosophical war: a series of ideological battles. Since 1989, boundaries have been drawn, and sides have been taken. Short articles, philosophical essays, critical replies, and even books have written in regard to it; I strongly believe my comments in the essays to come won't be the last. And like any war, it's had dire consequences for the parties involved. Or to phrase it as Pain would, a character from the fictional anime/manga Naruto: “War brings pain and injury and death to both sides.” (Naruto, issue 429, page 2) While I'm pretty sure no one's died from this conflict, spiritual pains and injuries have certainly been inflicted, and will be for years to come. Friends and family have already become estranged or even bitter enemies; people have left organizations, quit attending philosophical meetings, and canceled speakers for lecture events; others have given up the philosophy altogether.

The Issues in Dispute

The issues involved are very technical and varied, concerning issues in epistemology and ethics. The two camps differ on five specific issues, but also differ in meaningful ways within these issues, as we'll see. The issues were encapsulated in the table of contents of David Kelley's book The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand: Truth & Toleration in Objectivism (CLAR): moral judgment, sanction, error and evil, toleration, and Objectivism itself.

(1) What is the nature of moral judgment, and how should it be applied?
(2) What is it to morally “sanction” something, and can (or should) we avoid doing so at all?
(3) Can ideas be “evil,” and what is the scope of honest error, and of dishonest ideas?
(4) What is the proper way to understand tolerance; what kind of people should we tolerate, and does tolerance as presented contradict the Objectivist notion of justice?
(5) Is Objectivism open or closed? What does this imply about the movement?

Conclusions and Comments

Based on what I've read, I don't believe there's a peaceable resolution to this conflict, just as there hasn't been these last 20 years. Peikoff and Kelley have declared that the other contradicts fundamental aspects of Objectivism, particularly in regards to “objectivity,” and by implication anyone else who agrees with either. Both groups think the other is detrimental to the movement, and prefers the other to simply drop out; Peikoff says this explicitly, while Kelley implies this on page 17 of CLAR's “Introduction.” (He calls Peikoff's approach to the movement “tribalism” and says that we need to get over it in order to progress.)

I stated in an earlier series of essays that I was a “closed system” advocate. Since I think this is the easiest of the issues to discuss, I will comment on it in part 2.

As for polemics: I'm more interested in presenting the views of the two positions, for clarity and to avoid misrepresentation. But if possible, I will critique any statements I find to be untrue, so as to give my perspective on these issues.

Comments would be appreciated.

Part 2: The History of the Dispute, and the Closed and Open Systems

A Brief History in the Second-Generation Objectivist Movement

Early in 1989, Peter Schwartz published "On Sanctioning the Sanctioners" in The Intellectual Activist, a short essay critical of supporters of the libertarian movement, and of those who either engage in, or support, the smearing of Ayn Rand. The main message of the article was that we should not sanction—approve of, endorse—that which (or those whom) we regard as evil, with particular focus on those who support groups like the two mentioned: we should not “sanction the sanctioners.” One of the targets of the article was Objectivist writer and lecturer David Kelley, who had spoken at a few libertarian events and had declined to speak out against a critical Rand biography by Barbara Branden called The Passion of Ayn Rand. Kelley replied back with "A Question of Sanction," (AQoS) thus briefly revealing his views of moral judgment, his cost-benefit methodology, and his vision of what Objectivism and the movement could be (and, to him, should be). Especially important for my current essay is Kelley's proclamation that Objectivism is not a “closed system,” but can be changed by our consideration and incorporation of new ideas from other viewpoints, it is “open” to such integrations and revisions—though Kelley doesn't elaborate on this point until his next work.

Prerequisites for Understanding Bacon's Induction Part 2: Scholastic Natural Philosophy

Bacon can and should be read within different contexts, but the one most fundamental for understanding the Novum Organum as Bacon meant it to be understood is the Aristotelian. (Regula Socratis, p. 212)