I have written on previous Objectvism based articles that there is two different ways to look at the philosophy. One way being that it is a closed system and cannot have anything added or removed to it. The other way is as an open system open to change and revision while still being called Objectivism. Some people think the split is only about associating with libertarians, but, that is not the case it is two different ways of looking at the philosophy as a whole. However, what is the correct answer? Is it an open system open to revision, change and new additions? Or is it a closed system and only The Philosophy as discovered/espoused by Ayn Rand nothing more or less?
No matter where I fall I will turn off people whom have their own stance on the matter in the debate. First of all I need to clarify that if Objectivism is a closed system it does not make it dogmatic, insular or intolerant to other points of view. It does not justify those whom misunderstand Objectivism and treat it like a religion or even a cult. It simply means it is what it is and nothing more nor less. It means that things like benevolence being added as a separate virtue from justice is not correct to the philosophy. It does not excuse forgetting about benevolence and good will as being a form of justice for those around us. It does not mean one loses all form of empathy and sympathy for others. It also does not mean pushing it down peoples throats like religious evangelicals.
It does not mean either that one takes Objectivism as all of philosophy or anywhere near the whole of philosophy in general. It does not mean you even are an Objectivist or agree with the philosophy. It does not mean you get to become a bully that calls anyone that dares to misunderstand Objectivism as evil. It does not even mean you need to not associate with people that take an Open view even if said view is incorrect. It does not mean bashing classical liberals that use other means to their ends. It does not mean that you call every single atheist that disagrees with your views as deluded or irrational. Nor does it mean that you call people suffering from the delusion of a creator to not be fully human for not using reason thoroughly on their own views.
Nor does the closed view require that you be Peikoffinst that takes anything and everything Leonard Peikoff as Objectivist Gospel. Nor does it mean you need to listen and believe that Peikoff is the often sited intellectual heir to Ayn Rand and authoritative on anything either. Nor does it mean you need to agree with the Ayn Rand Institute on any particular matters. In fact, to consider Peikoff to be hair without any evidence from Rand herself in writing or audio/video evidence is in fact saying Objectivism did not consist of only the philosophy discovered/espoused by Rand. It is in itself an Open view disguised as the closed system.
Objectivism is a closed system it is what it is. I agree 110% with this classic episode of Philosophy In Action which I think case closed on the idea that Objectivism is an open system. Objectivism is the philosophy for living a flourishing life on Earth as discovered by and espoused by Ayn Rand in her philosophical based writings. Anything else discovered afterwards is not the Objectivist-this or Objectivist-that. Objectivism the philosophy is a closed system whose ability to alter fundamentals or core virtues and concepts died when Ms. Rand died. Even the so-called Intellectual Hair whom has never been proven as such Peikoff cannot add anything to it nor speak about it with any authority. Reality is the authority per Objectivism's own ethics and Ms. Rand herself in her own writings.
To quote Diana Brickell from the above linked episode of Philosophy In Action;
The "closed system" view of Objectivism just asks that people respect Ayn Rand's philosophy as her own creation – and differentiate it from their own or others' ideas. Contrary to the advocates of the "open system," that approach doesn't lead to insularity, dogmatism, or intolerance.
Nowhere in the definition of Objectivism as a closed system does it say you need to agree with ARI and Leonard Peikoff. Nor even that you need to agree with Yaron Brook or anyone else on any given matter. Objectivism has a core virtue of independence which means just because someone else also is an Oist does not mean they are automatically right or automatically to be trusted. It does not mean you Worship Ayn as a Goddess or engage in the less than hospitable behavior of her old "collective" inner circle. It simply means Objectivism is Objectivism and that is it A=A.
I also echo Diana in saying that one being an Objectivist or not is not a good measure of a person being nice or reasonable. Nor is it that you can live a life that is full by isolating yourself unless you are around other Objectivist. That would be the worst thing you can do and it is mentally harmful to only deal with people whom you ideologically agree. Look instead for people of good character regardless of their views on your own ideas.
