Kelley in San Francisco: Objectivism as a philosophy and a movement by Raymie Stata February 1, 1990 Copyright 1990 by Raymie Stata Permission to copy and distribute granted provided that copyright notice appears on copies. On January sixth, 1990, David Kelley delivered a talk entitled "Objectivism: the philosophy and the movement." Kelley first discussed why he sees Objectivism as an open system and why he disagrees with Leonard Peikoff's position on the issue. Kelley went on to discuss a tribalist element he detects in the Objectivist movement and presented his own vision of what an Objectivism movement should be like. This was Kelley's first public appearance since the printing of Leonard Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value", in _The Intellectual Activist_ May 1989. Kelley only touched on one of the issues Peikoff raised; namely, Objectivism as a closed system. The rest, he said, will be covered in his forthcoming pamphlet _Truth and Toleration_, which will be available from Uncommon Sense book service when it is finished. OBJECTIVISM AS AN OPEN SYSTEM The question of Objectivism as open or closed involves two issues, Kelley said: identity and completeness. "What gives Objectivism its identity," he asked, "and how complete must that identity be?" According to Leonard Peikoff, the writings of Ayn Rand, and only those writings, give Objectivism its complete identity. As such, there is no room for change, and any person who expresses disagreement is outside the system. Kelley disagrees. Historically, he said, no school of philosophy has had the characteristics Peikoff ascribes to Objectivism. Schools include positions that the philosophy's original author did not hold, and even include contradictory positions. Kelley pointed out that Aristote- lianism includes both theist and atheist variations. Also, many individualists -- Ayn Rand included -- are Aristotelians even though Aristotle did not advocate an individualist politics. As another example, Kelley pointed out that while most philosophers have disagreed with most of what Kant actually wrote, many of these are still considered Kantian. Structurally, continued Kelley, Objectivism is far from complete. Ayn Rand herself said that a full understanding of the concepts "reality," "reason," "egoism," and "capitalism" would require volumes of thought. Extracting Miss Rand's philosophy from her political commentary, however, Kelley said that he counted only enough pages to fill a single volume. There is still work to do, he concluded. Kelley rejected the idea that the concept "Objectivism" refers to a body of writing. He said that "Objectivism" refers to a system of philosophy, and like all concepts it must be open-ended, allowing for new observations, deeper understanding, and, if necessary, corrections. Kelley was outspoken against the notion of an authoritative text, saying that such a notion was inconsistent with Objectivism. We must be concerned with the question "Is it true?" he said, not "Is it consistent with Ayn Rand?" But, he continued, the alternative to an authoritative text is not to rewrite Objectivism at whim. Instead, one must _define_ it in terms of its essential points and the connections among them, especially those points and connections that serve to distinguish Objectivism from other philosophies. Kelley went on to present his own definition of Objectivism. He started with the list Miss Rand made while "standing on one foot:" objective reality, reason, egoism, capitalism. He said that this is the level of detail that the man on the street will hold Objectivism if it ever reaches culture-wide influence. However, he added, if this is all that Ayn Rand said, she would have to be counted as a late born enlightenment thinker rather than as the creator of a new philosophic system. A technical definition of Objectivism must include Ayn Rand's original and distinctive insights defending her positions. Given this, Kelley proposed the following definition: 1. Metaphysics. - Primacy of existence: the absolutism of facts (i.e., consciousness as metaphysically passive), consciousness as veridical awareness. - Identity and causality as axioms which determine the proper method of logic. Kelley said that the connection between logic and fact is important and distinctive to Objectivism. 2. Epistemology. - Reason: the senses as its base, logic as its method, and conceptualization and abstraction as its form of function. Kelley stressed Miss Rand's distinctive emphasis on universals. - Miss Rand's distinction among the objective, intrinsic, and subjective approaches to concepts. Kelley said that this is crucial since it provides Objectivism's fundamental answer to Kant. - Reason as volitional. Kelley stressed Miss Rand's distinctive theory of free will and its connection to ethics. 3. Ethics. - Relation between value and life, Miss Rand's answer to the "is-ought" problem. - Rationality as the primary virtue. - Independence as the key link among epistemology, ethics, and politics. - The centrality of production in human life, of shaping the world in the image of values. Kelley identified this as the essence behind Miss Rand's view of man as a heroic being. - Explicit rejection of altruism and the mind/body dichotomy. 4. Politics. - Connection between capitalism and individual rights. For the first time in history, said Kelley, Ayn Rand brings together capitalism and individual rights. - The call for a _moral_ defense of capitalism. - Rights as the right to action, and force as the only means to violate them. - Need for government ruled by objective law to maintain capitalism. Kelley said that these points and connections, when properly under- stood and integrated, are the essence of Objectivism, and anyone in agreement with them is an Objectivist. Other issues he said, such as the theory of measurement omission and the rest of the virtues, are technical issues raised in elaboration or defense of the essentials, and a person who disputes them can be in the Objectivist school. Kelley said that while he feels that he can prove why exactly those points he listed define Objectivism, this itself is open to argument. He returned to his point that "Objectivism" should be treated as any other concept by saying that its definition needs to be proven, allows for borderline cases, and can change with growing knowledge. Kelley rejected the view that one can dismiss a person who disputes a point of Objectivism on the grounds that "if you reject this, every- thing else falls." This begs the question: the person is disputing the point because he denies that everything else will fall and, to the contrary, that the point in question actually contradicts the rest of Objectivism. While Objectivism is an integrated whole, Kelley said, its connections are not intrinsically revealed but must be discovered. Thus the proper approach is for Objectivists to argue over disputed connec- tions, not legislate them out of existence. OBJECTIVISM AS A MOVEMENT Kelley said that he detects an element of tribalism in some quarters of the Objectivist movement. Mixed with much that is good, he said, leading figures and institutions in the movement encourage this element. Tribalists experience their identity as part of a group, he explained. Tribalism has social and epistemological manifestations. The tribalist tends to seek friendships only within the tribe, to shun outsiders, and to adopt an "us vs. them" attitude. And since the tribalist fears expulsion, he avoids questioning. Kelley defended his position by pointing out symptoms of tribalism in the Objectivist movement. A rational person approaches other people with benevolence and the expectation of rationality, he said. Many Objectivists, on the other hand, have a negativeness and exaggerated pessimism about the world; they speak of "an Objectivist world" and "enemies of Objectivism" and generally regard outsiders with suspicion, thus cutting themselves off from society. While a rational man feels sadness when confronted with the need for moral condemnation, Kelley said, many Objectivists have a relish for it. Kelley contrasted Roark's contempt for social climbing with the deep social hierarchy of the Objectivist movement. And while the rational man expects occasional disagreement when dealing with other independent minds, Kelley noted that many Objectivists consider it a big "problem" if an intellectual disagreement doesn't disappear in short order. The tribal element manifests itself most overtly as purges, he said. The purges are an irrational way of dealing with what are often real problems. In these purges, the need to hear both sides, an elementary principle of disputes, is regularly overlooked. Also, he said that the purges bring personal disputes into the public forum but only half-way, leaving the public guessing. Kelley also feels that the tribal element leads to idolatry -- worshiping a concrete symbol instead of the truths it represents. The idol, of course, is Ayn Rand; flaws in her are equated with flaws in her ideas. He saw idolatry as the root of the upheaval caused by Barbara Branden's book. Kelley does not have much hope for change within existing circles of the Objectivist movement, although he said that he would love to be proven wrong about this. Meanwhile, he is forming his own vision of an Objectivism movement, drawing from history, in particular the Enlighten- ment. Kelley listed three characteristics of intellectual movements. First, movements are widespread, spanning many people and lots of time. Second, movements foster technical discussion and debate. Third, movements generate an impulse of ideas that flow through thousands of channels, including art, educational reform, and political reform. Socially, Kelley said, movements are characterized by dense networks of personal connections and collaborations. He said that movements have no central leader, although some people in the movement distinguish themselves. Movements have no central direction either, because there cannot be automatic, unorganized agreement. He pointed out that move- ments often have bitter rivalries and enmities; for example, many of the heroes of the enlightment were not on speaking terms. In regards to his own disputes, Kelley summed up his attitude as "I used to work with certain people, but now I don't -- that's the way movements work." Kelley said that there is vast potential for a widespread Objec- tivism movement and that he is optimistic. "But we can't wait for people to come to us -- a movement won't be built purge by purge," he added. We have to encourage independence, which means that we have to expect -- even welcome -- disagreement within the bounds set by a proper definition of Objectivism. And we have to practice quality control not on people, but on ideas. Kelley announced the founding of _The Institute for Objectivist Studies_ by himself, George Walsh, Walter Donway, and Murray Franck, with Kelley serving as executive director "for as short a period as possible." He said that the institute's main mission will be to encourage scholarly work on Objectivism, especially work aimed at new knowledge. Details were not given, but the institute will do a mailing soon, and Kelley indicated that activities would be underway by the summer. --------- NOTE: This summary is a journalistic report, not an interpretation or an endorsement. This summary borrows from Eyal Mozes' earlier summary. David Kelley has _not_ seen this summary; I take full responsibility for its accuracy.