Anyone can call himself an "Objectivist"

Here's why I decided not to.

I remain as convinced of the rightness of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism as I’ve been for several decades. I don’t agree with everyone’s application of the philosophy’s principles to various concrete questions (e.g., Rand’s positions on homosexuality and a woman President come to mind). But that’s okay. Those applications are not the philosophy itself, at least as I understand most of them, and honest, rational people can disagree when, e.g., possessing different facts and weighing them differently.

For the longest time, I called myself an “Objectivist” to denote my agreement with Objectivism. It made sense to do so. It was shorthand, a convenience, a way to express in one word the principles that I hold to anyone who understands the term. I never meant to express allegiance or to identify myself as part of a group. It wasn’t a badge of honor, and it certainly wasn’t a form of virtue signaling.

After all, one of Objectivism’s cardinal virtues is independence, meaning independence of one’s mind and of one’s thinking. The philosophy demands that you think for yourself, up to and including identifying your own philosophy. If you agree with Objectivism, then great. If you don’t, by your use of your own independent mind, but rather you come up with some other philosophy, then that’s proper. What’s important is that your philosophy is actually yours, and not something you’ve glommed onto that was created by someone else. As Rand said, you shouldn’t be a second-hander.

In that latter case (your philosophy is different), I would say that one shouldn’t claim that one’s philosophy is “Objectivism,” because that’s the name that Rand gave to her philosophy as she laid it out. Just give your philosophy its own name. Incidentally, there’s long been a sort of schism in the Objectivist movement around whether Objectivism is a closed system, that is, it’s entirely Rand’s works and nothing more, or it’s an open system that people can add onto and expand. I don’t engage in that debate, really, but if I did, I would be on the side of those who say that “Objectivism” is the philosophy of Ayn Rand and nothing more — with my own view being quite literally that in calling myself an Objectivist, it has always meant agreement with the philosophy itself but not all of Rand’s (or anyone’s) applications of it.

So, back to the point. I have decided to no longer call myself an Objectivist, but not because I’ve changed my thinking (although I’ve certainly adjusted some of my positions, that is, my applications, lately). Rather, starting when I jumped back into the fray last year after a bit of an absence, I discovered that too many people who call themselves Objectivists are so far away from my ideas that I no longer want to be associated with them.

It’s already hard enough to both defend my positions, and Rand’s philosophy, on its own in a culture that largely repudiates both Rand and Objectivism. Having to differentiate myself from people who, in spite of Objectivism being a reality-based philosophy, often seem entirely ignorant of the facts of reality, is too exhausting and too disruptive to my goals. I referred to that characteristic where I discussed the shallow epistemology.

I just don’t want anyone to think, for example, that as an “Objectivist,” I agree with Leonard Peikoff’s endorsement of Donald Trump. I absolutely do not, and in fact, I think that coming from Rand’s intellectual heir and the foremost Objectivist scholar, that endorsement is destructive to the philosophy’s already minimal standing in the culture. As I’ve seen when I look around the cultural landscape, all of the same anti-Rand and anti-Objectivism tropes remain dominant, and I’d like to see that change.

Simply put, I don’t want someone to read Peikoff’s endorsement, which includes his “Real Objectivists for Ayn Rand,” or “ROAR,” label therein, and think that I include myself in that group if it means agreement with his endorsement. Some might read this and think I’m being disrespectful towards a man who has contributed so much to the philosophy and who understands the philosophy so much better than I ever will. That’s a fair complaint, and that’s certainly not my intent. So I’ll add that while I single out his endorsement because of his prominence, it’s really the many other, “mainstream” Objectivists who have communicated problematic perspectives that cause me to shift my stance.

Also interesting to me is that when I’ve brought up my concerns, about people who call themselves Objectivists while expressing positions that cannot possibly be consistent with Objectivism, I’ve almost invariably been told, “Well, anyone can call themselves an ‘Objectivist’.” And that’s exactly my point.

It’s extremely important for me to point out that in making this decision, and in talking about it, I am not attempting to usurp some kind of authority. Nobody can properly claim ownership of such philosophical labels or of a philosophy itself. I am quite literally speaking for myself here, in expressing my disagreement with and my desire not to be associated with people who take various positions that I must then repudiate. Although I am confident in my perspective, I claim neither infallibility nor superior knowledge or understanding. I think for myself, and I own what I think.

Rather than label myself as an Objectivist, then, I’m going to simply refer to myself — where relevant — as an independent thinker who agrees with Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Everyone else, of course, is free to refer to themselves as they wish, and to refer to me anyway they please.