"A philosophy that rejects the monism of idealism or materialism does not thereby become 'dualist.'"The trouble is then how, exactly, one can reject monism without accepting some form of dualism or pluralism!
- Leonard Peikoff, 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand' p 35
Leonard Peikoff's solution is to make up a new word.
"In this situation, a new term is required..."Objectivism"'" (p 35 ibid)In the common parlance, this is called a fudge. Chris Sciabarra's solution, on the other hand, is to call it "dialectics".
"Dialectics...is not anti-dualism any more than it is anti-monism. It is pro-context."I am not sure we are any the wiser after this either.
But does Objectivism really reject both philosophic monism and dualism as aggressively as its rhetoric suggests? Here's Rand herself:
"I want to stress this; it is a very important distinction. A great number of philosophical errors and confusions are created by failing to distinguish between consciousness and existence -- between the process of consciousness and the reality of the world outside, between the perceiver and the perceived." - Ayn Rand, ITOE, "The Role of Words - Words and Concepts"While this is still vague, it is to all intents and purposes a strongly dualist statement in the entirely ordinary philosophical sense. That is, "a very important distinction" exists between "consciousness" and "existence" ie: the "reality of the world outside." While of course we can then go on to roll up these two elements and call it a "monism" if we want, this would be merely pedantry, as you could equally do this to traditional dualist cosmologies. In short, if walks like a dualism, and quacks like a dualism, it doesn't really matter what you try to dress it up as.