The latest purge in the Objectivist movement

The ARI is charged with preserving the intellectual legacy of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism. When they “purge” someone, all they’re doing is saying that the given person has views that are not consistent with Ayn Rand’s philosophy. They are not repressing anyone, in any way. If they did not act as the guardians of the integrity and accurate expression of Rand’s philosophy, that philosophy could come to embody ideas that were extraneous (or even antithetical) to Rand’s original vision.

In our democratic society, we have grown accustomed to thinking about ideas in terms of the way the public defines them, such as what defines “conservatism” or “constitutionality” or “equality” or “liberty.” The public also has varying definitions of what is “scriptural” or “Biblical,” or whether something even originated from a divine source. The definitions of — and interpretations for — these concepts are fluid, because nobody owns these concepts.

But it’s different when you’re talking about Objectivism. It’s not on par with any other philosophy or viewpoint, and its definition does not change. This is a philosophy that was defined and created by only one person — Ayn Rand — and only her definition matters. She entrusted the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) to safeguard her legacy, and so her “ownership” of what constitutes her philosophy has extended to the ARI.

In other words, you’re not an objectivist unless you agree with Rand 100 percent, pure and simple. If you agree with 99.9% of Rand’s views, you may be a thoughtful and intelligent person, and possibly could call yourself a “near-objectivist” but certainly not an objectivist. It’s like calling someone “a little bit pregnant.” Either they are, or they aren’t. Either you are an Objectivist (adopting the whole enchilada of Rand’s philosophy — by definition), or you’re not. There is no grey area.

Just because there is a bright and consistent definition of Objectivism does not mean that no one is allowed to disagree. It’s just that they are not to be considered “the real deal” by the only organization that can define Objectivism accurately — the Ayn Rand Institute.

I get a little disgusted when someone implies that the ARI is behaving like fascists (“ARIan”) simply because they want to preserve that distinctive quality of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. It’s her philosophy, and if you don’t agree with it, don’t purport to call yourself an objectivist.

Now, is it possible that the ARI can misrepresent Rand’s views on something? Certainly! Would Rand have said no one should vote for Republican candidates? Who knows. If you want to criticize the ARI on the basis that they’re misrepresenting Objectivism, then fine. But if they can’t represent Objectivism accurately, I doubt anyone can. Rand entrusted Peikoff with carrying on her legacy; she personally knew him and conferred this trust on him directly. So I think Peikoff has a little credibility here, something that no one else outside the ARI has.

John Dias

The ARI is charged with preserving the intellectual legacy of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism. When they “purge” someone, all they’re doing is saying that the given person has views that are not consistent with Ayn Rand’s philosophy. They are not repressing anyone, in any way. If they did not act as the guardians of the integrity and accurate expression of Rand’s philosophy, that philosophy could come to embody ideas that were extraneous (or even antithetical) to Rand’s original vision.

In our democratic society, we have grown accustomed to thinking about ideas in terms of the way the public defines them, such as what defines “conservatism” or “constitutionality” or “equality” or “liberty.” The public also has varying definitions of what is “scriptural” or “Biblical,” or whether something even originated from a divine source. The definitions of — and interpretations for — these concepts are fluid, because nobody owns these concepts.

But it’s different when you’re talking about Objectivism. It’s not on par with any other philosophy or viewpoint, and its definition does not change. This is a philosophy that was defined and created by only one person — Ayn Rand — and only her definition matters. She entrusted the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) to safeguard her legacy, and so her “ownership” of what constitutes her philosophy has extended to the ARI.

In other words, you’re not an objectivist unless you agree with Rand 100 percent, pure and simple. If you agree with 99.9% of Rand’s views, you may be a thoughtful and intelligent person, and possibly could call yourself a “near-objectivist” but certainly not an objectivist. It’s like calling someone “a little bit pregnant.” Either they are, or they aren’t. Either you are an Objectivist (adopting the whole enchilada of Rand’s philosophy — by definition), or you’re not. There is no grey area.

Just because there is a bright and consistent definition of Objectivism does not mean that no one is allowed to disagree. It’s just that they are not to be considered “the real deal” by the only organization that can define Objectivism accurately — the Ayn Rand Institute.

I get a little disgusted when someone implies that the ARI is behaving like fascists (“ARIan”) simply because they want to preserve that distinctive quality of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. It’s her philosophy, and if you don’t agree with it, don’t purport to call yourself an objectivist.

Now, is it possible that the ARI can misrepresent Rand’s views on something? Certainly! Would Rand have said no one should vote for Republican candidates? Who knows. If you want to criticize the ARI on the basis that they’re misrepresenting Objectivism, then fine. But if they can’t represent Objectivism accurately, I doubt anyone can. Rand entrusted Peikoff with carrying on her legacy; she personally knew him and conferred this trust on him directly. So I think Peikoff has a little credibility here, something that no one else outside the ARI has.

John Dias