I have been doing a lot of talking about our sociobiological nature lately and been rebutting more than one of the more prominent Objectivist intellectuals while I have been at it. This could leave some to assume I somehow think Objectivism as a philosophy is not coherent with reality and that I take the Open-System view of the philosophy. This would be further assumed by the fact that I have embedded a video defending the compatibility of sociobiological reality with Objectivist philosophy from The Atlas Society. The video I posted was by Ed Huggins, but, just because he is an Open-Objectivism proponent does not mean I agree with his personal outlook.
I can find value in someones input on a topic without agreeing with them philosophically. If someone only uses people they agree with on everything as sources of information they are doing nothing more than living in an echo-chamber bubble. The truth is I am in the Objectivism is Objectivism camp and I fully adhere to the so-called Closed System view. All this means is I agree with the following statement;
Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand used for her philosophical achievement. As such, the term "Objectivism" may only be applied to the ideas by Rand or by those she explicitly endorsed. This is not to say that there are not other philosophical truths that rational thought can illuminate, but that passing these ideas as the work of Ayn Rand is misleading.
This means not even the Ayn Rand Institute can speak for 'The Objectivist view." Anything that is not part of the fundamentals and essentials of Ayn Rand's philosophy is not part of Objectivism. They can be an attempt at applying Objectivism proper, but, it will not be and is not Objectivism. It could be considered "An" Objectivist view, but, not "The" Objectivist View. It could also be called "An" Objectivist view and be a total crock of shit which is a total misapplication of Objectivism on said topic due to the person simply rationalizing their own cognitive bias in Objectivist language. We are an animal that can use even the most rational seeming language really just to further our own inbuilt biases.
Just because someone uses the label Objectivist does not mean that person is worthy of any respect as an intellectual. Nor does it mean you should trust said person persay. There are some douches and vile people that use the label just as there are douches/vile people that do not use the label. We should not concentrate on whether the other people around us are Objectivists or not, but, whether they have the virtues and values that good people should espouse irregardless of their views for or against Ayn Rand's Philosophy. This is a place where for SOME Objectivists the virtue of independence is lacking for them Objectivist equals automatically good and any non-Objectivist is like something of the devil. This is a very isolating view it is also not thinking individualistically at all. It is turning Objectivism into a sort of Collective of agree with Ms. Rand good and disagree on even the most mundane thing is evil.
This is one of the reasons that Freedom Party of Canada; despite their platform being based entirely on reality, reason, self and consent is still a fringe party. Meanwhile the Libertarian Party of Ontario was voted in enough to be considered the 4th Party in the Ontario Election that just passed. The people behind that party make agreeing with Objectivism on everything a primary. Which means that sense so little people in Canada are actually philosophically grounded; let alone Objectivists they lost out on the votes. The Ontario Libertarian Party which at the time was headed by Allen Small got more votes because they did not push Objectivism or else on the electorate. This is not to say that I sign off on the broader "libertarian movement." I do not, but, a small l libertarian which goes back to the insanity of Murray Rothbard at its inception and a Capital L Libertarian need to at all be the same thing. One is a Party Designation and the other is a much broader intellectual movement.
Now, I am going to move onto actually give information not on Evo-Psych, but, information on Objectivism proper. To show there is no incompatibility between accepting our nature and accepting Ayn Rand's Philosophy as part of your own outlook. First of all we will need a detailed description, but, yet a concise one of what Objectivism actually says; what Ayn Rand actually said not on matters of the personal, but, philosophical.
"Objectivism is the name chosen by Ayn Rand for her philosophy. Some essentials of Objectivism are that reality is real (i.e., Existence exists), and that we are conscious of reality (Consciousness is conscious).
From this, Objectivism propounds that knowledge is objective: it is not simply revealed or "obvious", nor is it whimsically subjective. Knowledge is the result of a consciousness gaining understanding of reality.
The better we understand reality, the better we can deal with it. Ayn Rand described Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth -- by which she meant that it was a philosophy grounded in reality with the purpose of enabling its adherents to better deal with reality. A common thread running through all of Objectivism is the sanctity of the individual, rational human being.
Ayn Rand rejected the idea that men who pursue their own interests must end up in conflict with one another. Objectivism holds individual rights to be the mechanism by which men can pursue their individual interests without being in conflict with one another.
Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter).
There are philosophical truths which were not incorporated into Objectivism.You should not assume without proof that everything in Objectivism is true.
In fact, to assume without proof that everything Ayn Rand said is true, contradicts Objectivist Epistemology.
The above is a very basic, but, still well detailed explanation of Objectivism which comes from the totally awesome website ObjectivismWiki. So, basically Objectivism is in metaphysics reality is objective and external to anyone's consciousness. This is true it is a fact of reality and how existence works. In epistemology it says that reason and being rational is our means of gaining true knowledge. In ethics it says we should pursue our long term happiness in life in a manner which does not sacrifice either your own values or the values of others. In other words one should be Rationally Selfish and live for oneself not as s sacrificial animal on the alter of others. In Politics this becomes Capitalism as it is the only moral social system; the only system which bars initiation of non-consent and coercion and fully defends ones individual rights. In Aesthetics it says art should portray life as it could be and should be in order to be morally proper art for a person with the right mindset.
Nowhere in the philosophy itself does it say; "oh and the human animal is not an animal and has nothing baked into their nature." There is in fact no conflicts at all between our Sociobiological nature and any of the above statements. The above constitutes the philosophical views of Ayn Rand and thus constitutes Objectivism. That is it; nothing added to it and nothing taken from it. The prescriptions of moral values and virtues within the philosophy are a prescription for living a flourishing life on Earth. Whereas Evolutionary Psychology is a description of our nature that we have to work within the bounds of while following her prescription. Reality is the arbiter of life and not Ms Rand's application of the virtues or values in her own time and place. Or misapplication as the case maybe.
Evolutionary Psychology far from being anti-Objectivist or in conflict with Objectivism actually fits right in with Objectivism as it was formed. After all the majority of The John Galt Speech is focusing on mankind having a nature and needing to live according to it. We have simply found out information about that nature that is different from what was supposed in her time. If anything it has shown that John Galt was right when he said in his speech a humane society must let "man live as man." That as Galt said, "man is man and that he must live as a man." (Man here is referring to mankind.) Or as Ayn Rand said herself when the subject of human nature came up, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
