TAS vs. ARI: A Question of Objectivity and Independence
by William ThomasThe Atlas Society (also known as The Objectivist Center) works with students to spread the revolutionary ideas of Objectivism and train a new generation of Objectivist intellectuals. We encourage students to attend our Summer Seminar and other conferences, to use the resources on this site as well as our products to master Objectivism, and to share these ideas among their peers. We offer generous scholarships to our conferences for promising students. Through programs like these, you can learn Objectivism and learn to live it.
But anyone who wants to take advantage of what The Atlas Society (TAS/TOC) has to offer can face a difficult choice. That is the choice between TAS/TOC and the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) and its affiliates. The Ayn Rand Institute has a long history1 of breaking ties with students and groups who do not strictly adhere to its demands.2 TAS/TOC is one such organization, and ARI has a policy of breaking ties with any person or group who does not condemn David Kelley, the founder of TAS/TOC. It has in the past insisted that student groups affiliated with it incorporate a rejection of David Kelley and TAS/TOC into their by-laws. If you have ties to ARI, exploring the values TOC has to offer could put those ties in jeopardy.
It takes courage to face that risk, but what's at stake is more important than any material support ARI can offer you.
What's at stake is your objectivity and your independence.
In her explanation of independence in Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand dramatically stated the essential issue:
The vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middlemen between your consciousness and your existence. (AS 1019)
Isn't self-abasement exactly what ARI and the estate of Ayn Rand demand from Objectivists? They denounce the character of Objectivist scholars, scorning demands for evidence of their claims, expecting you will take their say-so as truth.3 They aim to teach you to repeat Ayn Rand's words, and reject out of hand the possibility that anyone could rationally criticize or amend them.4 Doesn't that amount to a demand that you subordinate your mind? And their policies rest on a bedrock of never questioning certain authorities.5 Aren't they then putting their edicts as middlemen between your consciousness and your existence?
We recognize the value of some of the work produced by ARI and the intellectuals associated with it. For example, we sell Leonard Peikoff's survey Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand through our Objectivism Store. We do this as part of our commitment to deal objectively with scholarship on Objectivism. But ARI doesn't share that commitment: books by David Kelley and other scholars affiliated with TAS and TOC are never mentioned at ARI, nor sold by the affiliated Ayn Rand Bookstore. What is it they don't want you to think about? What is it they value more than truth?
You deserve to learn Objectivism in an atmosphere of open rational inquiry, where teachers offer their expertise rather than their authority and where you can see the benevolent sense of life of Objectivism in action.
That's what The Atlas Society has to offer. You owe it to yourself—to your own intellectual integrity—to make a first-hand judgment about TAS/TOC. We invite you to compare the programs, research, and courses that we offer with their counterparts (such as exist) in the ARI-affiliated circle.
One crucial difference between ARI and TAS lies in how we approach academia. This issue is especially important to current students or scholars interested in Ayn Rand's ideas. ARI materials preach a message of contempt and alienation: that universities are all corrupt, that contemporary philosophers have nothing to offer, and that Objectivists can only survive in academia by radically separating their course work from their study of Objectivism.6 This attitude is reflected in Leonard Peikoff's assertion, in the preface of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (xiv), that his book is "written not for academics, but for human beings (including any academics who qualify)."
The Atlas Society does not minimize the fundamental errors that influence modern academic work, from the flagrant irrationality of postmodernism to the methodological flaws of analytic philosophy. But we also believe there is value to be found in the work of many contemporary scholars. Our programs train students to integrate the knowledge and skills they can gain in a university setting with the aspects of Objectivism that are under-appreciated there. And in philosophy, we take the broad scholarly literature seriously. We don't dismiss the Western tradition. Instead we work to show the distinctive historical value of Objectivism in the full context of the history of rigorous thought. It is a comparison from which a rational philosophy can only gain.
Independence is the recognition that the mind is a faculty of the individual. Objectivity is the recognition that all knowledge is based on the facts. A philosophy of individualism and reason cannot flourish in an atmosphere of dogmatism, appeal to authority, and loyalty to people over loyalty to facts. Individualism and reason require the open vistas of clear debate and wide-ranging discussion. This is the principle on which TAS and TOC were founded.
We invite you to take advantage of the resources TAS has to offer. Come see what it is like to learn Objectivism from people who take the philosophy to heart, at the home of rational individualism.
1. For a discussion of the history and issues behind the dispute between ARI and TOC, see David Kelley, The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand: Truth and Toleration in Objectivism.
2. For a recent example of ARI's demands, see Damian Moskovitz "An Open Letter to the Ayn Rand Institute"
3. The denunciation of Objectivist scholars George Reisman and Edith Packer led ARI leaders to demand that others accept their moral judgment even in the absence of evidence. See Per-Olof Samuelsson "An Open Letter to Leonard Peikoff for one example.
4. The classic statement of this position is Leonard Peikoff, "Fact and Value," The Intellectual Activist V,1. There he writes "The 'official, authorized doctrine,' [of Objectivism]… remains unchanged and untouched in Ayn Rand's books; it is not affected by any interpreters."
5. See ARI's interview with Leonard Peikoff, Impact 8.1 (February 1993). In it, Peikoff is asked: "What do you like and dislike about being the spokesman of Objectivism?" Peikoff answers "I like having the power to make definitive statements on philosophical questions." This, taken in the context of Peikoff's status as "spokesman of Objectivism" and "intellectual heir" of Ayn Rand, appears to presume that Peikoff's word on philosophical issues is definitive.
6.Compare this to TOC's "Foundations" study guides.