The Fallacy of Sufficiency

In The Art of Non-Fiction, Ayn Rand herself says that "there is no such thing as Objectivism." But to a certain extent, I fear that it is the belief of many so-called Objectivists in this effectively floating abstraction as a system sufficient unto itself which has been one of the major inhibiting factors in the spread of Ayn Rand's system and of her innovative concepts.

I do not wish to comment here on any specific personalities or individual schools. Anyone with more than a passing interest in Rand has his own knowledge and opinion on their various strengths and weaknesses. I do wish to comment on a fallacious notion that I see all to often embodied in those who call themselves Objectivists. This is the idea that Objectivism is a sufficient system.

I mean by what I shall call here the fallacy of sufficiency the idea that a familiarity with some or all of Ayn Rand's works, or even the greater Objectivist corpus, is a sufficient education in which to make one an authority in all matters of human knowledge, especially in the humanities, but also even in the physical sciences. For example, we get so-called Objectivists with little or no relevant knowledge of history, the Constitution, or international law and the conventions of war opining on the appropriateness of Bush's removing Saddam as if this were some matter to be settled upon 40 year old magazine articles alone, without reference to a huge body of knowledge; statecraft, the laws of war, what an armistice is, Saddam's and the US's treaty obligations, the President's oath of office, the Constitution's requirements upon and powers granted to the president, knowledge of the origins of Iraq, the Ba'athist party and its relations to Nazism, and so on, ad infinitum.

Not only do internet posters who have other day-jobs feel entitled to say that the US should not have started a preemptive war in Iraq (when it didn't) we also get more well-known thinkers and even foundation and movement "leaders" inveighing against Bush's "altruist" motives and protesting that Iran is the real enemy. Well, of course, the president might have mixed premises, and of course Iran might be a good target for us to attack. But by making these arguments using Objectivist cant, without referring to the facts of the matter - such as that by the laws of war and the terms of our armistice we were already at war with Saddam - and by relying on "But Ayn Rand said!" arguments alone, (25 years now after her death) anything that could be said would seem either beside the fact at best, or cultish at worst.

While Martin Luther preached the priesthood of all men, and hence the doctrine of sola scriptura or "by scripture alone," the Jesuits teach that it is a sin to make authoritative statements in an area in which you are not grounded - be it theology or medicine or law. Objectivists are not Jesuits. But we would do well as individuals to refrain from making arguments on highly technical and complex matters, often well outside our own expertise, and especially on matters which fall well within the scope of legitimate and established bodies of knowledge, as if those bodies of knowledge don't exist or need not be addressed since Rand never commanded us to do so.

Some so-called Objectivists feel sufficiently grounded by their familiarity with her works to advocate for "gay marriage" - without knowing what the concept of common-law marriage is, to argue about patent and copyright law, to argue about the innateness of sexual preference; to argue about the animal mind; or to argue for English spelling reform* - without, for example, a knowledge of previous attempts at such reforms; without knowledge of the origins of that spelling itself in the simultaneous adoption of the conventions of French, Latin, and Greek added on top of the underlying Germanic roots of our tongue; without a knowledge of all the various dialects of English - and the result that any spelling reform would have of enshrining one dialect's current phonology while making all other dialects that much farther from the approved standard. For instance, would we spell it Australia, or Oystrighleeya? Would "my mom" be "mah mahm" or "mee mum" or "migh maum"? The examples are, of course, absurd. But the idea that Objectivism is sufficient to determine the proper answers, without a broad knowledge of English dialects from Ireland to Bombay to Tasmania to Kentucky, and without a knowledge of philology and comparative linguistics, is even more absurd.

I am not trying to insult anyone here who has engaged in debates on such topics, taking one side or the other, being more or less-well versed in these subjects as independent matters. I'm certainly not one to withhold my opinion on any subject - but I try to acknowledge where my expertise ends and my ignorance begins. But when I hear people who are supposedly "leaders" or voices of the "movement" expressing opinions on the Big Bang without any grounding in physics, or on the "unfortunate" but not "immoral" nature of homosexuality without knowing anything about biology or animal sexuality, or expressing opinions on the origins of Christianity (the single most written about subject of all time) without even a cursory familiarity with any of that thought, I find their claims questionable, if not laughable, and the grounds for their claims insufficient.

The extant body of human knowledge and research is largely valid, and is entirely beyond the scope of any one individual. If reasoned science, secular humanism, classical liberalism, and rational egoism are to become well-grounded and ultimately dominant and default positions of mankind, Objectivism, or at least the valid innovations of Ayn Rand and the beginnings of an outline of a full and broad philosophy will be necessary. But also necessary will be lawyers and statesmen who happen to know Objectivism, ecologists and historians and physicians who happen to know Objectivism, military strategists and diplomats and educators who happen to know Objectivism, astronomers and politicians and police who happen to know Objectivism, and linguists and movie directors and financiers who happen to know Objectivism. Rand's central Objectivist corpus alone is necessary, but not sufficient. Objectivist specialists need to apply Objectivism to their specialties and to make their analyses available to all. And Objectivists should judge these works on their individual worth and promote these works for their own independent value, not according to which faction has published them. Objectivism is neither complete, nor closed, nor sufficient, (nor the property of any one person) and so long as human knowledge expands, it never, by itself, will be.

Ted Keer June, 2007

Addendum: I wish to make it clear that the positions that I used as examples in my post should be taken as conclusions sometimes reached through faulty reasoning. However, they are not necessarily invalid positions in themselves. They simply need to be addressed both in light of Objectivist principles and the existing context, facts, laws, and so forth. For instance, regarding the Iraq War, I would consider it totally invalid to argue simply that the war is not in our interest, question closed. I would, however, accept as valid an argument saying that the war is against our interest and thus we should have repealed our armistice or negotiated a new treaty with Iraq.