Neil Parille Revisits Question: Is Objectivism a Religion?

In 2008, I published a blog post, Is Orthodox Objectivism a Religion?  A lot has happened in the last sixteen years – the retirement of Leonard Peikoff, the publication of three biographies of Ayn Rand, several schisms, etc. – so I think it’s time for an update and a potential re-evaluation.  As with my 2008 piece, my discussion of Objectivism is limited to Objectivists associated with the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) unless otherwise noted.

1. Rand saw herself as something of a secular prophet. In the first edition of Anthem, published in 1936, she wrote, “I have broken the tables of my brothers, and my own tables do I now write with my own spirit.” Rand’s writing is frequently apocalyptic as well. She begins John Galt’s sermon in Atlas Shrugged with an Old Testament-like rebuke of a sinful world facing judgment. “I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing—you who dread knowledge—I am the one who will now tell you . . . .”

Nothing much to change here.

2. Orthodox Objectivism has its official canon of scripture. As Harry Binswanger says to those who consider joining his email list:

"It is understood that Objectivism is limited to the philosophic principles expounded by Ayn Rand in the writings published during her lifetime plus those articles by other authors that she published in her own periodicals (e.g., The Objectivist) or included in her anthologies."

There are a couple things to change here.  

First, scripture isn’t quite so binding anymore on at least a couple of issues: Rand’s disapproval of homosexuality and a woman president.  Objectivists seem to be free to reject these ideas.  In fact, Craig Biddle (an orthodox Objectivist whose falling out with the ARI was of a personal nature), has said that if one were to apply Rand’s ideas consistently, these views are contrary to Objectivism.

Second, while material not published by Rand during her lifetime isn’t seen as scripture, much of it has been published over the years.  While you might assume this material doesn’t rise to the level of infallibility, its status as Apocrypha should be respected.  However, in 2009, Jennifer Burns published her biography Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right.  Burns revealed that six posthumously published books – most importantly The Journals of Ayn Rand – were so heavily edited as to be essentially worthless.  These works were all edited by writers who were (and mostly still are) associated with the ARI.  As Burns says of The Journals.

“The editing of the Journals of Ayn Rand (1997) is far more significant and problematic. On nearly every page of the published journals, an unacknowledged change has been made from Rand’s original writing. In the book’s foreword the editor, David Harriman, defends his practice of eliminating Rand’s words and inserting his own as necessary for greater clarity. In many cases, however, his editing serves to significantly alter Rand’s meaning.” 

Not only that, but the published material has at times removed references to people with whom Rand or Peikoff had a falling out.  While this rewriting may have parallels may be common in traditional religions, its closest parallel is to secular religions such as Communism where rewriting and airbrushing material is done to establish a Cult of Personality as with Lenin and Stalin.  It is a sad reflection on the ARI that it has not come to terms with this.  Yaron Brook was asked about this recently and he said claims of substantial rewriting were promoted by “the enemies of the ARI.”  (To be fair, as Burns noted, this editorial tampering was not the work of the archivists at the ARI.)

3. Like religions, Orthodox Objectivism has the tendency to turn disagreements about doctrine into moral issues

This has remained the same.  Indeed, this aspect of Objectivism became clear when Leonard Peikoff excommunicated John McCaskey in 2010.  Peikoff and David Harriman collaborated on a book on induction which was published (with only Harriman as the author) as The Logical Leap.  McCaskey, a philosopher of science with a Ph.D. from Stanford University, criticized the book, finding its discussion of certain thinkers inaccurate.  Peikoff denounced McCaskey, who was on the Board of the ARI at the time, and said unless McCaskey was fired, he might stop supporting the ARI.

When a great book sponsored by the Institute and championed by me – I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism – is denounced by a member of the Board of the Institute, which I founded someone has to go and will go. It is your prerogative to decide whom.

I do understand how much money M has brought to ARI, and how many college appointments he has gotten and is still getting. As Ayn would have put it, that raises him one rung in Hell, but it does not convert Objectivism into pragmatism.

Shortly thereafter, McCaskey resigned from the Board.  Craig Biddle, who edited what was then the house journal of the ARI, The Objective Standard, was also given the boot.  Biddle’s sin was thinking Peikoff went overboard in his denunciation of McCaskey.  Yaron Brook resigned from the masthead of The Objective Standard thereafter.  Diana Hsieh was collateral damage in this dustup since she defended Biddle.  (Hsieh has left Objectivism, apparently becoming something of a conventional leftist.)

Peikoff also proudly said at the time that he was not on speaking terms with nearly half of the Board of Directors.  Some years later there was another schism – this time with multi-millionaire supporter Carl Barney.  

Apparently tired of the “bad rap” Objectivism was getting over all the breaks, the ARI funded a paper in 2022 by Ben Bayer and Harry Binswanger.  Essentially the paper said that the ARI wouldn’t respond in the future to breaks and – by a tortuous epistemology that’s hard to summarize – argued it’s basically impossible for anyone to conclude that the ARI is in the wrong when it comes to splits.

4. As can be seen from the above quote, adulation of the group’s founder is paramount in Orthodox Objectivist circles. In particular, Rand’s sacred name is given great reverence by her followers. Rarely is she referred to as just “Rand.” She may be called “Ayn Rand,” “Miss Rand,” or “AR.” Leonard Peikoff is now commonly called “Leonard Peikoff” and “LP.”

This is still the standard way of referring to Rand.  One thing I’d mention is that the adulation of Rand has moved on to new levels.  A couple prominent Objectivists, Harry Binswanger and James Valliant, have praised Rand as the founder of Cognitive Psychology.  Also, at the time, I didn’t know that the concept of moral perfection played a large role in Objectivism.  Objectivists such as Brook and Chief Philosophy Officer (what a title) Onkar Ghate, get suddenly agnostic when asked if Rand was morally perfect.  Other Objectivists are rather explicit that she was.

5. Also, like many religious people, Orthodox Objectivists abhor the “backslider,” the person who appears to give assent to the truth but is working behind the scenes to circumvent it. Leonard Peikoff mentions the type of people Rand attracted in the above article:

Not much new to report.  This phenomenon was employed by Peikoff to explain why Rand (who was otherwise omniscient) didn’t excommunicate people like the Brandens and the Blumenthals sooner.  I’d note that Peikoff said McCaskey “might for all I know be an Objectivist” implying that he was a back slider.

6. Orthodox Objectivism has its official villains and heretics of the type described by Peikoff. The two most evil figures in this pantheon are, of course, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. There are lesser fallen angels, such as David Kelley.

The Brandens and David Kelley remain arch villains.  The dislike of Kelley (the originator of the “Open Objectivism” concept) became clear when Stephen Hicks debated Craig Biddle. Hicks, who is associated with the Kelley influenced Atlas Society, took the Open position.

Needless to say, the hate fest against the Brandens shows no sign of abating, although it is now possible to at least mention Nathaniel’s contributions to pre-68 Objectivism.  Since this piece was originally published, two biographies utilizing archival material have been published.  Both biographies have confirmed the general accuracy of the Branden accounts.  You’d like to think that those who denounced the Brandens (in particular those who called Barbara’s biography an “arbitrary assertion”) might consider making a posthumous apology, but that’s about as likely as a restoration of the Stuarts.

7. Orthodox Objectivism has its official church, the Ayn Rand Institute, which proselytizes on behalf of Objectivism. Leonard Peikoff and his small college of cardinals (Harry Binswanger and Peter Schwartz) supervise the movement. Peikoff occasionally speaks ex cathedra, as he did at the time of the Kelley break.

"Now I wish to make a request to any unadmitted anti-Objectivists reading this piece, a request that I make as Ayn Rand's intellectual and legal heir. If you reject the concept of "objectivity" and the necessity of moral judgment, if you sunder fact and value, mind and body, concepts and percepts, if you agree with the Branden or Kelley viewpoint or anything resembling it — please drop out of our movement: drop Ayn Rand, leave Objectivism alone."

Unlike many religions, however, Objectivists are intent on charging high prices for their material, which would seem to run counter to their movement’s aim. Objectivist retreats, called "Objectivist Conferences,” are quite expensive to attend.

A few things have changed.  Most notably Leonard Peikoff has retired.  Also, Peikoff has said that upon his passing there will be no intellectual heir to Ayn Rand.  But the ARI seems to have taken over Peikoff’s claim to speak for Objectivism.  The ARI has for example stated dogmatically that Rand would have despised Donald Trump. The ARI occasionally implies that its position of de-facto open borders on immigration is the Randian position, although Rand wrote next to nothing about immigration.  Put in Catholic terms, the Petrine Office has been shut down, but Apostolic Succession remains in force.

I checked recently and the ARI’s bookstore has dramatically reduced prices for recordings of its scholars’ courses and the like.  More importantly, since 2008 there has been a veritable explosion in books written by ARI scholars.  Tara Smith has written at least three books, Binswanger finally published his long-awaited book on epistemology, and the Ayn Rand Society has published three anthologies of works presented in their conferences.  Particularly valuable is the Greg Salmieri and Allan Gotthelf anthology, A Companion to Ayn Rand.

8. Those who are associated with the ARI must take care that they do not demonstrate their “worldliness” by fraternizing with Kelleyites and other deviationists.

No member of the Objectivist movement may associate with Kelley’s Atlas Center, for example. While an Objectivist might be permitted to publish in a mainstream philosophical journal (notwithstanding the fact that such journals routinely publish articles devoted to the destruction of man’s mind), no Objectivist may publish in Chris Sciabarra’s Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. No word yet on whether the lapsed may be restored to a state of grace.

Not much to change here.  Since 2008, Objectivists such as Brook seem more willing to engage in debates or have talks with people such as Jordan Peterson, but I don’t know of any time an ARI scholar has debated an Atlas Society scholar.  As noted above the debate between Hicks and Craig Biddle was denounced by the ARI.  ARI supporter James Valliant said that debating Open Objectivism was on par with debating slavery or Holocausts denial.