by Chris Wolf
Some would say that we have no right to modify Rand's philosophy of Objectivism; that it is her philosophy, and we either accept it in totality, or not at all. But this is treating her philosophy like a copyrighted book, rather than a philosophy. Ayn Rand did not invent the philosophy of Objectivism, she discovered it. She gets full credit for discovering it, but she does not own it. Her discoveries were brilliant, and she was a bona-fide genius, but we are not obliged to continue her mistakes.
The philosophy of Objectivism is defined and characterized by its fundamental principles, which do not include Ayn Rand's own applications of Objectivism. For example, Rand's concepts of evasion and evil are not even philosophical concepts; they are psychological concepts. Like Rand's views on a woman President, they are not part of the philosophy of Objectivism. It takes more than a claim or assertion to make a particular concept part of the structure of Objectivism. Just because Ayn Rand says it is, doesn't make it so. Reality takes precedence, even over Ayn Rand.
We have no right to rewrite Atlas Shrugged, but we have every right to correct any mistakes in the philosophy of Objectivism, or to toss out those parts of the philosophy that prove to be false or unworkable. Of course if it becomes necessary to alter a fundamental principle of Objectivism, then the philosophy would no longer be Objectivism. It would be necessary to call the new philosophy something else, to distinguish it from Rand's original version.
When Rand accepted Aristotle's metaphysics and logic, but corrected his epistemology and dropped his ethics, she gave the result a new name: Objectivism. It is quite possible that the same thing will happen to Objectivism. Its best ideas may well be incorporated into a new philosophy, just as Rand did with Aristotle.
It is important to remember that the word 'Objectivism' actually refers to two different things. There is the official version of the philosophy of Objectivism, discovered and written down by Ayn Rand. Then there is the School of Objectivism, which is much broader and less-rigidly defined. In the School of Objectivism, one will find many shades and degrees of Objectivism. One will find people who disagree as to what Objectivism actually means or implies, or who even openly disagree with some part of Objectivism.
As with any concept, the borders of inclusion of a School of Thought will necessarily be fuzzy. Obviously if someone disagrees with a fundamental principle of Objectivism, he should not call himself an Objectivist. However it's not always easy to get two people to agree on just what is a fundamental principle of Objectivism, or whether or not someone is rejecting the principle, and so disputes and disagreements will necessarily arise.
In such disagreements, it is ridiculous to attack the character and honesty of one's opponent. It's like telling someone, "You shouldn't call yourself an honest man if you're not going to tell the truth." Yes, of course. But if one's opponent is convinced that he is speaking the truth, then of course he's going to call himself an honest man. Therefore, public pronouncements of "intellectual dishonesty" are frequently wrong and unjust. It is very irrational to call a man 'dishonest' when he is simply expressing honest disagreement, even if you are certain his claims are false.
However this is exactly why we have people who are in the 'School of Objectivism,' as opposed to those who are genuine 'Objectivists.' In actuality, there are probably very few living human beings who could be said to be pure 'Aristotelians,' or pure 'Kantians,' or even pure 'Objectivists.' What we mostly have are people who accept Objectivism in varying degrees, until we reach a point where it would be difficult to say if a particular person actually belonged to the School of Objectivism. Everyone will have a different notion of where the dividing line is to be drawn, and this is perfectly okay in a School of Thought. In this way, the purity of the original philosophy is maintained, yet no one is obliged to be bound by the mistakes of the philosophy's founder.