Open Objectivism
I’ve been busy, busy, busy, but I made the time to respond to a blog article titled “The Atlas Society and ‘Open Objectivism’ : A wrong choice of words.” The author went to an Atlas Society (previously The Objectivist Center) summer seminar recently, where he heard that TAS was going to use the phrase “Open Objectivism” to describe what they were about. He disagreed with their decision to use the phrase, but his reasons seem centered on the old “Why do the two groups (the Ayn Rand Institute and TAS) *have* to disagree?” argument. Also, he suggested the phrases “Individualist Objectivism” or “New Individualism” as alternatives to “Open Objectivism.” After reading the article, I think that he’s more offended that they use the word “open,” which implies that everybody else must be closed-minded, than he was about their choice to use the word “Objectivism.”
I disagree with their choice to use “Objectivism” to describe what they do, especially when they openly advocate for ideas that are not compatible with Objectivism. My short comment is reprinted below:
——-
I think it’s dishonest for TAS to use the term “Objectivism” at all, no matter what adjectives they attach to it. Objectivism is a word that identifies something very specific: Ayn Rand’s philosophy. It is Ayn Rand’s creation, nothing more, and nothing less. When groups like TAS use “Objectivism” to denote something that Ayn Rand did not include in her philosophy, they *at best* confuse the matter for individuals who may not be able to distinguish Ayn Rand’s work from theirs. At worst, they intentionally steal Ayn Rand’s work for their own gain.
So, it’s not really a question of “closed” or “open.” It’s a matter of proper identification. If they think they can add to Objectivism, good for them. They just shouldn’t call their creation “Objectivism.”
Tags: [atlas society, objectivism, open objectivism]