- - - - -
For reference:
Fact and Value: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
The Leonard Peikoff/David Kelley intellectual exchange: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
- - - - -

As the person who first raised the issue of tolerance and of open vs. closed Objectivism—and the person whose position has been under consideration in recent posts—I’d like first of all to thank Walter Donway for his articulate explanation and defense of the position we share. To weigh in with additional thoughts:

1. Historically, the debate began in 1989 when Peter Schwartz attacked me for speaking to a libertarian organization, the Laissez-Farire Books supper club. I responded with a 4-page open letter ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) mailed (in pre-internet days) to my Objectivist colleagues, including Schwartz and Peikoff among others. I advocated tolerance in the service of the open expansion of Objectivism:

“There is much we can learn from others if we are willing to listen. And even where they are wrong, we strengthen the foundations of our own beliefs—the accuracy and range of our observations, the validity of our concepts, the rigor of our arguments—by the effort to prove why they are wrong.

“That’s why every age of reason has welcomed diversity and debate. The great minds of the Enlightenment declared war on the entire apparatus of intolerance: the obsession with official or authorized doctrine, the concepts of heresy and blasphemy, the party lines and intellectual xenophobia, the militant hostility among rival sects, the constant schisms and breaks, the character assassination of those who fall from grace. These are the techniques of irrational philosophies, such as Christianity or Marxism, and may well have been vital to their success. But they have no place in a philosophy of reason.

“Ayn Rand left us a magnificent system of ideas. But it is not a closed system. It is a powerful engine of integration. Let us not starve it of fuel by shutting our minds to what is good in other approaches. Let us test our ideas in open debate. If we are right, we have nothing to fear; if we are wrong, we have something to learn. Above all, let us encourage independent thought among ourselves. Let us welcome dissent, and the restless ways of the explorers among us. Nine out of ten new ideas will be mistakes, but the tenth will let in the light.”

That excerpt should make it clear that toleration of and engagement with those we disagree with is not the primary issue. The primary issue is whether Objectivism is open or closed as a philosophical system. If it’s open, we benefit from engagement. If closed, why bother? The open character is the founding principle of The Atlas Society, and we have pursued it many ways. An example is my work on benevolence as a virtue, which, as Walter explains, is grounded in basic values of Objectivism. That said, we are rigorous about what work we endorse: it must be consistent with established Objectivist principles, as hundreds of pages of exposition on our website will attest.

2. To my knowledge, this was the first time any Objectivist thinker has raised the issue of open vs. closed. I thought the open character was obvious; I thought my Objectivist colleagues were pursuing new Objectivist insights. “Fact and Value” was Peikoff’s response, saying that the philosophy was closed. I replied to his essay at length in The Contested Legacy pf Ayn Rand, esp. Chap 5. ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ) No principal in Peikoff’s camp has responded to my arguments in 25 years. Meanwhile, I gave a talk on the issues in 2010, “Truth and Toleration Twenty Years Later” ( http://atlassociety.org/about-us/abou... ).

My friends in the Gulch, this is an important issue and well worth debating. Having been party to this argument for 25 years, I hope my writing here today provides some historical context for those pursuing the issue in earnest. I'll try to answer any questions you might have.