Changes

Objectivism as a formal discipline began with [[Ayn Rand]], a Russian-born émigrée to the United States. Ayn Rand attended The University of Petrograd where she studied philosophy and history. She graduated in 1924. In her work, showed more than a passing familiarity with the great philosophers of ancient Western civilization. The ancient philosopher she respected the most was [[Aristotle]].

Objectivism as a formal discipline began with [[Ayn Rand]], a Russian-born émigrée to the United States. Ayn Rand attended The University of Petrograd where she studied philosophy and history. She graduated in 1924. In her work, showed more than a passing familiarity with the great philosophers of ancient Western civilization. The ancient philosopher she respected the most was [[Aristotle]].

By far the most complete expression of Objectivism in a single volume is in her novel, ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]''<ref name=Atlas>[[Ayn Rand|Rand, Ayn]]. ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]''. New York: Random House Publishers, 1957, 1168 pages, cloth. ISBN 0394415760</ref>. However, her philosophy found expression in innumerable essays, which she published in a number of newsletters and magazines that she edited from time to time: ''The Objectivist Newsletter'', ''The Objectivist'', and ''The Ayn Rand Letter.''

By far the most complete expression of Objectivism in a single volume is in her novel, and most famous work, ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]''<ref name=Atlas>[[Ayn Rand|Rand, Ayn]]. ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]''. New York: Random House Publishers, 1957, 1168 pages, cloth. ISBN 0394415760</ref>. However, her philosophy found expression in innumerable essays, whichwere published in a number of newsletters and magazines that she edited from time to time, primarily ''The Objectivist Newsletter'', ''The Objectivist'', and ''The Ayn Rand Letter'', many of which have no been collected in ''The Letters of Ayn Rand''<ref>Rang, Berliner and Peikoff (1997), '''The Letters of Ayn Rand''', Plume Publishing</ref>. Many of her working notes have also been collated, edited and published in ''The Journals of Ayn Rand''<ref>Rand, Peikoff and Harriman (1999), '''The Journals of Ayn Rand''', Plume Publishing</ref>. These compilations have made it far easier for the aspiring student of philosophy to gain insight not only into Rand's revolutionary philosophy, but also into the formation of the philosophy, the question she asked and avenues she explored.

Since her death in 1982, other students of hers, most notably [[Leonard Peikoff]] and Erick Werman, have tried to carry on her work. Whether they have enjoyed any success is a debatable question. For better or worse, the history of Objectivism is largely the history of Ayn Rand herself, and by the time she died, the name ''Objectivism'' was known chiefly to her admirers and to readers of her works.<ref name=Passion>[[Barbara Branden|Branden, Barbara]]. ''The Passion of Ayn Rand''. New York: Anchor Publishers, 1987, 464 pages, paperback. ISBN 038524388X</ref>

 

Since her death in 1982, other students of hers, most notably [[Leonard Peikoff]] have continued to support the development and study of Objectivism through the the Ayn Rand Institute, as well as through editing and publishing Rand's own works that would otherwise have been lost or hard to study. The Atlas Society performs a similar function, and counts Nathan Branden amongst it's most influential thinkers.

== The Fundamental Tenets of Objectivism ==

== The Fundamental Tenets of Objectivism ==

Objectivism then declares that the only moral code proper to man has ''man's life'' as its standard of value. Rand, Peikoff, and other students of Objectivism have always drawn a stark contrast between this standard and the standard of those they regarded as their opponents: "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Objectivism then declares that the only moral code proper to man has ''man's life'' as its standard of value. Rand, Peikoff, and other students of Objectivism have always drawn a stark contrast between this standard and the standard of those they regarded as their opponents: "the greatest good for the greatest number."

But this does not mean that Objectivism extols what most people mean by ''selfishness''. Objectivism regards that sort of "selfishness" as shortsighted and non-rational. Objectivism requires that a person ''choose'' to be rational in his thinking, and should work to enhance his self-interest ''after determining what that interest is after rational and logical analysis.''

However, most emphatically, this does '''not''' mean that Objectivism extols what most people mean by ''selfishness''. Objectivism regards that sort of "selfishness" as shortsighted and non-rational. Objectivism requires that a person ''choose'' to be rational in his thinking, and should work to enhance his self-interest ''after determining what that interest is through rational and logical analysis.''

Objectivism makes at least two definitions that non-adherents might find harsh and symptomatic of [[Logical fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]:

Objectivism makes at least two definitions that non-adherents might find harsh and symptomatic of [[Logical fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]:

# "Altruism" is sacrifice, as defined above, for the sake of persons other than oneself.

# "Altruism" is sacrifice, as defined above, for the sake of persons other than oneself.

Actually, what Objectivism calls ''sacrifice'', other schools of philosophy call ''waste''. Sacrifice, according to these other schools, is actually the giving of a great value for another, still greater value. Furthermore, the definition of ''altruism'' implies that no man should be obliged, let alone forced, to care or act for the sake of other people.

Actually, what Objectivism calls ''sacrifice'', other schools of philosophy call ''waste''. Sacrifice, according to these other schools, is actually the giving of a great value for another, still greater value. Furthermore, the definition of ''altruism'' indicates that no man should be obliged, let alone forced, to care or act for the sake of other people.

Indeed, in only one context does Objectivism itself lay any obligation on its adherents to act for the sake of another, and that is in an ''emergency''--which Objectivism defines as an immediate life-threatening casualty event or condition.

In only one context does Objectivism lay any obligation on its adherents to act for the sake of another, and that is in an ''emergency'', that is, an immediate life-threatening casualty event or condition.

Rand, Peikoff, and other adherents to Objectivism held that their greatest objection was to the use of force in social relationships. This leads directly to the Objectivist theory of politics.

Rand, Peikoff, and other adherents to Objectivism held that their greatest objection was to the use of force in social relationships. This leads directly to the Objectivist theory of politics.

== Can Objectivism develop further? ==

== Can Objectivism develop further? ==

This question is [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|debatable]]. Many students of Objectivism are not likely to admit that Ayn Rand's original system had any flaws. Branden, of course, asserted that Objectivism ''was'' flawed, but was not prepared to reject it entirely. He still found its emphasis on logic and of an independent reality important and beneficial.

This question is [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|debatable]]. Branden asserted that Objectivism was "flawed", but nonetheless found its emphasis on logic and of an independent reality important and beneficial. Applying the principles of Objectivist philosophy to ones own life offers undoubted advantages to physical and mental quality of life, which applying such principles to politics leads to economic growth, greater personal and economic freedoms and a more healthy society. Nonetheless, no philosophy can remain static, and with many greater American thinkers dedicated to advancing the philosophy of Objectivism, the field is extremely dynamic and constantly evolving, and the world provides new opportunities for applying Objectivist principles.

 

Objectivism's chief limitation appears to be the unwillingness of its adherents and formulators to consider that anything might exist ''outside'' of perceptual reality, that might nevertheless influence that reality. This either led to, or followed from, the [[atheism]] that is one of this school's most prominent attributes. Branden reports one interesting interaction, however: Rand was not willing to accept the theory of [[evolution]] as more than an hypothesis. She couldn't accept [[Creationism|creation]], but evolution discomfited her nevertheless--perhaps because it blurred the distinction between man and animal.<ref name=BrandenBenHaz/> <ref name=Parille>[[Neil Parille|Parille, Neil]], [http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand_and_Evolution.shtml Ayn Rand and Evolution], at RebirthofReason.com</ref>

In regard to this last: Diana Mertz Hsieh accuses Branden of distorting Rand on this point, and says that Rand refused to endorse evolution merely because she believed she did not have the required scientific knowledge to make an informed judgment.<ref name=poisonwell>Hsieh, Diana Mertz, [http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2005/07/poisoning-well.html Poisoning the Well], 24 March 2007</ref> In actual fact, Branden details that conversation:<blockquote>I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the [[theory of evolution]] is only a hypothesis." I asked her, "Ayn, you mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms, including humans, evolved from less complex life forms?" She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all [[God]]'s [[creation]]; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.<ref name=BrandenBenHaz/></blockquote>What that something was, Branden never said. [[Neil Parille]] offers this explanation: that evolution cannot explain the development of consciousness, and that some of evolution's proponents, among them [[Ernst Haeckel]], put Rand off by their explicit rejection of the human will.<ref name=Parille/>

In regarding to life science, Rand correctly realised that the the theory of [[evolution]] as more than an hypothesis. She did not acept [[Creationism|creation]] as a fact, due to it not being directly percieavble and measurable, but Rand also refused to endorse evolution, because she believed she did not have the required scientific knowledge to make an informed judgment.<ref name=poisonwell>Hsieh, Diana Mertz, [http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2005/07/poisoning-well.html Poisoning the Well], 24 March 2007</ref>  

== References ==

== References ==