What They Won’t Tell You About Objectivism: Thoughts on the Objectivist Philosophy in the Post-Randian Era (Philosophy, Logic, Science, Law)

Like so many young idealistic young men in the early 1960s I became fascinated after reading all of Ayn Rand’s books and took courses on her philosophy of Objectivism. Over the years, when I began to really think for myself in a deeper philosophical way I drifted away from the subject but still held a passionate interest in Ayn Rand and Objectivism.As I was checking Amazon for new books and material I ran across this very interesting and thoughtful volume (What they won’t tell you about Objectivism: Thoughts on the Objectivist Philosophy in the post-Randian era by Russell Hasan) and decided to purchase it. I just finished reading this excellent book and amazingly I had found myself following the same path as the author when it came to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I had drifted away from it when I saw the contradictions, dogma and cult like worship of Ayn Rand, even though I did agree with the basic philosophical principles of Objectivism. Now that there are two factions (open and closed Objectivists) I am once again following the philosophy in the open group and feel this is where I can find agreement.This is a book for anyone who is interested in a philosophy based upon the objective reality of Objectivism.Rating: 5 Stars. Joseph J. Truncale (Author: Tactical Principles of the most effective Combative Systems)

NB: I have not read the book. I read what was available as a preview and felt compelled to put my $0.02 in as the author seems to be taking up a topic that's often irritated me: namely, the insanity that revolves around Rand's work on all sides. I will just mention two types of people, and he mentions a third. The first two groups do a drive-by dusting of Rand's work, at best, and then form their final opinions of it. Group 1 says, "She says it's good to be selfish, hell yeah, screw you, I'm doing what I want!." Group 2 says, "She says it's good to be selfish, what a monster, she's the devil!" If you actually take the time to dive in to her work, it's much more complex. She promotes rational self-interest, the idea that one has the right to live primarily for one's own happiness and purposes. Seems to me the Declaration of Independence says much the same. She never said not to care about others, she simply said you should care about those you want to care about, who mean something to you; you're not obligated to be a Mother Theresa unless you so choose to, you don't have an automatic obligation to all other human beings. Rational self-interest is already the code most people live by, they just don't know it. And Group 3 are the cult-like inner circle followers of Rand that the author mentions, who seemed back in the days when she was alive, and even after her death, to be vying for superior Objectivist status. Many who were once in her closest circle, such as Nathaniel Branden, George Reisman and his wife Edith Packer, have been ex-communicated over the years for various 'sins.' So as writers such as Albert Ellis and Michael Shermer have pointed out, a group ostensibly dedicated to reason can end up acting seemingly very unreasonable. Branden wrote a piece entitled The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It seems to be a fairly balanced presentation of the good and the bad. There are two major Objectivist think tanks: The Ayn Rand Institute is the mouthpiece of her 'offiicial' heirs while the The Atlas Society promotes 'open Objectivism.' I think any time a system of thought is taken as final and absolute, that can be a problem. So, my point in writing all this, and it's directed at those who maybe have heard something or another about Rand, but haven't read much of it for themselves: There are definitely some great ideas to be had, and it can be very inspirational; just keep your eyes and mind open, don't be completely dogmatic about it, take what advances your life and leave that which doesn't.

I stumbled across this book thanks to the associations that Amazon makes based on other titles I've viewed or purchased.I am an Objectivist ... only I didn't know it until I read Atlas Shrugged. I attended a Lutheran-run parochial school first through 8th grade, and went on to a public high school. My parents were non-religious but our local public school system was horrible. The Lutherans did their best to indoctrinate me with their religious views (and I'm sure this has had some impact on my life). However, around 6th grade, we had a unit on the "myths of ancient Greece" -- and I had trouble discerning the differences between Zeus, Poseidon, and various other Greek gods from the "one true God" that we talked about in religion class. I eventually concluded that I was an atheist. Subsequently, I took various philosophy classes on my way to a business administration degree. One required course was "The Western Ethic" ... where we went through all the principle philosophers from ancient Greece to contemporary times. Since I was not a philosopher (though I had a considerable sense of my feelings about philosophy), I started my own "search" for a philosophy that appealed to me. It was not until I was in my 50s that I happened to read Atlas Shrugged (a book my wife had read years earlier -- but (remarkably) she skipped the "Galt Speech" chapter because she was mostly interested in the story!). When I got to Galt's speech, it was then I realized that I'd been an Objectivist for years and years, only I didn't know it. Later when reading all the related Objectivist books, I realized, that as a high school student, I'd read Ayn Rand's newspaper columns -- perhaps they had planted a seed, but I'd long forgotten about them until reading the collected book of them seemed familiar.I give this introduction simply to point out that there are multiple ways to become an Objectivist, while the method the author mentions in his book is fairly common. There is some truth to many of the assertions in this book, but also there are misunderstandings and out-dated observations (that is, things about those at the center of “official” Objectivism that may have been true at one time, but is no longer the case).The author, rightly, focuses on The Fountainhead and on Atlas Shrugged — looking to these novels for the heart of Objectivist philosophy. But the author fails to appreciate that these are novels, and not formal statements of philosophy. There is now a large and growing library of books and papers by Objectivist authors that further expand and explain the philosophy. This extensive number of publications, several written by Ayn Rand (The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) and others by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Dr. Harry Binswanger, Dr. Edwin A. Locke, Dr. Tara Smith, Dr. Gregory Salmieri, and Dr. Andrew Bernstein all serve to further explain (and expand) the workings and understandings of Objectivism. (Note each of these authors have “author pages” on Amazon listing their books available here.)Objectivists are divided, with multiple sub-groups and some other groups that owe a debt to Ayn Rand, but do not fully accept/endorse her philosophy. I'm sure the "movement" would be more effective if these internecine squabbles didn't exist -- but reality is otherwise. Objectivism emphasizes independent thought, and thus, it leads to differences of opinion -- that sometimes is less different than it first appears. (e.g. the "closed" vs."open" debate -- in reality, just like the U.S.Constitution (that is closed except for a very difficult means to amend it), we do not need to change what Ayn Rand writes when there are well written (though somewhat academic) works that expand, extend, and clarify Rand's philosophy. (Just like Supreme Court decisions expand, extend, and clarify the U.S. Constitution). We leave it to Objectivists everywhere to make up their own minds. So, I'm not sure that the author's focus on these various "objectivist" groups differ really is that important. The only question, not addressed, is if the "open" folks decide that (say) atheism should not be part of Objectivism, at what point does it no longer be Objectivism? (This self-answers, as modern Libertarians (through the CATO Institute) openly celebrate the foundation of Ayn Rands philosophy to their viewpoint (though CATO does not accept all aspects of Objectivism). I note that John A. Allison, former President and CEO of CATO Institute and current member of the CATO board is also an active Objectivist. Ayn Rand is known to have made strong criticism of "libertarians" during her lifetime -- but the current "brand" of libertarianism as represented by CATO is not what Rand criticized.There are criticisms of Ayn Rand as having a cult surrounding her (with excommunications, etc.). Ayn Rand was a very dominant personality. She gathered a group of “students” around her, who became somewhat of a cult. Unfortunately, Rand was not tolerant of those who did not agree 100% with her views — and there were several “excommunications.” Her affair with Nathaniel Branden (and his later excommunication) was certainly not a high point of her life. The (objective) reality is that Ayn Rand had a brilliant mind and a sharp wit. She authored some fascinating and very politically relevant books, and through them developed a comprehensive, reason-based philosophy. But, like all humans, she had her personal failings and emotional blind-spots. Rand’s personal life and her own life-decisions (whether later judged good or bad) is not relevant to the Philosophy of Objectivism. All humans make errors of judgment, even when they (should have) known better. (I dare say that Aristotle, Plato, and all other philosophers all made errors in their lives…)One repeated trope is that Objectivism has been “taken over by the right-wing conservatives.” This is so totally wrong that it is a ridiculous assertion. The National Review, movement Conservative William F. Buckley, Jr’s news and commentary magazine on political, cultural, and cultural affairs, published a review of Atlas Shrugged by Whittaker Chambers in their December 28, 1957 issue (the review was reprinted in their Jan 5, 2005 issue, the 50th anniversary of National Review) that completely pans the book and negates ANY consideration that the conservative right even understand Rand’s work, much less accepts it. In my opinion, this is the biggest error that William F. Buckley, Jr. and the conservative movement made. Rand’s defense of capitalism on moral grounds separates the economic system from religion and collectivist goals. Yet, National Review continues to take cheap shots and make snide remarks about Ayn Rand and Objectivism to this day.This also renders the author’s argument that “official” Objectivism (i.e. ARI) downplays atheism subject to question. Atheism is not a very interesting topic to most Objectivists, but for the Objectivist view, See Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts That Support It by Craig Biddle (available here on Amazon). The first 30 pages are devoted to an explanation of why atheism is required (that is about 20% of the book).The criticism of the Objectivist case on art and artistic works is dead on. Art is highly subjective and Rand's approach to artistic criticism lacks the rigorousness of the rest of her philosophy. Some of the artworks (by Objectivist artists) are perfectly acceptable. But so are many of the artworks from non-objectivist artists. Other art is simply "yuck." Well, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.Lastly, I can't help but point out that the book is one of the most poorly designed and formatted books I've seen. (Using "look inside" this problem appears to extend to all of the author's titles.) Since the author is a lawyer, I'm sure he would never appear in court (as a lawyer) dressed in the clothes he would wear for a weekend doing garden work. (Indeed, should he show up in court that way, he'd likely be censured by the Judge.) Making a good presentation helps create a sense of credibility for the material. At the very least, the book could have used a good proofreader (and an editor). There were numerous typos, including missing or mistyped words in a direct quote from Ayn Rand's writing. Also, there is no index -- something that would have been of considerably use in a book of this nature.If the content had not been interesting, I'd give it one star for the formatting alone.