There's something rotten in the state of Objectivism
I’ve written about what I consider the “shallow epistemology,” where people possess too few of the facts to draw legitimate conclusions. I’ve perceived it in many people who call themselves “Objectivists.” And, similarly, I’ve said that I no longer call myself an “Objectivist” because too many who do so are too far away from my own positions on too many things.
But now, I’ve come across the above statement by Andrew Bernstein, a very prominent Objectivist who has written about Objectivism and applied Objectivist principles to various topics for decades. By all standard measures, he should know Objectivism better than I do. I won’t take the time right now to identify why his statement is not just wrong, but wholly evil. All I’ll say is this: nobody who shares my philosophy could possibly write that statement.
And I mean that, quite literally. It’s impossible. It can’t be justified as a mere mistake, or founded in simple ignorance, or even an example of pure rationalism. By my philosophy, those words and the ideas they represent simply aren’t possible. Given his experience with the philosophy, combined with so many others who are almost, but not quite, as bad, important questions are raised.
Do I understand Objectivism as well as I thought I did? Can I say that I agree with it, if it renders a proponent capable of making such a statement? Or does it have some inherent flaw that I’ve never identified? Maybe I don’t agree with Objectivism after all.
I’ve had questions about the philosophy for as long as I’ve known about it, but I didn’t think those questions were so important. I didn’t think they rose to the level of making me question the entire philosophy, from its most basic principles on up. Now, I’m simply not so sure.
It doesn't bother me if you decide you are "adjacent to Objectivism"--but don't do it because of these guys. It's like deciding you don't like the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution because of Trump. But he's against those things! (He's currently running down the Declaration's list of charges against George III and trying to do as many of them as possible.)
The problem, as I see it, is that a philosophy of reason doesn't put itself into practice. Believing in reason in theory is one thing. Thinking rationally in practice is another. It requires the discovery and internalization of more detailed premises and the cultivation of certain psychological habits, and the internal culture of the Objectivist movement hasn't explored that practice enough.
And it hasn't always provided good models. There is an unfortunate history of Objectivists (sometimes prominent ones) letting themselves get pushed in one direction based on emotions or sense of life, telling themselves that because they believe in something strongly, it must be "rational," and then coming up with the arguments afterward. This is a natural human temptation, so we shouldn't assume people in our movement would be immune from it.
But someone rationalizing their emotions does not place reason itself in doubt.
Someone called him out in length on Facebook on this, and he posted a retraction and apology for it. He was being emotional and owned up to it. Just for the record.
It is true that his original post was not anything worthy of an Objectivist, and he has admitted this unequivocally.