First let me say, I really do not care what anyone calls me, or thinks I am or supposes I believe or think, even if what they call me, think I am or suppose I believe or think is untrue. Those who know me personally know the truth—as for the rest, I don't really care at all.

Just to set the record straight, however, I have never identified myself as an Objectivist or with any Objectivist organization or movement. In many places I have flatly stated, I am not an Objectivist.

So anyone who happens to read this on a site that does identify itself as, "Objectivist," will understand that the writer, like most so-called Objectivists, generally have no idea what they are talking about. I quote: "Regi Firehammer is an 'Objectivist voice' (or so he deems himself). And he certainly doesn't lack for 'strong opinions.' ... Should TAS invite Mr. Firehammer to speak at a Summer Seminar?

On the last, I certainly hope they won't. I'm much too busy to spend my time at a Sunday school picnic of second-handers rehashing the same old stale subjects they are all experts on and know nothing about. The only thing I am a voice for is me. I do not speak for anyone else, or any organization or any movement. Like Ayn Rand, I am an independent individualist.

So what is my relationship to Ayn Rand and her philosophy? Let me quote from my article, "Beginning With Objectivism."

What is Objectivism

Is Objectivism a closed or open system? The entire controversy over this question, which generates a lot of heat, but not so much light, seems a bit silly to me. I personally regard Objectivism to be the specific contribution to philosophy made by Ayn Rand, nothing more and nothing less.

The argument that philosophy is not a closed field is certainly correct but with regard to Objectivism, is irrelevant. Objectivism is not philosophy, it is a philosophy, it is not even a complete philosophy, it is only a contribution to the field. It is a major contribution and probably the single most important contribution since Aristotle, but it is a specific contribution made by a single individual who gave her contribution the name, Objectivism.

Is Objectivism open to analysis and criticism? Of course it is, as any contribution to philosophy is; because philosophy is open-ended; specific contributions to it are not, else they could not be identified. If just anything related to Ayn Rand's contribution to philosophy, with this taken out, and this added in, and this other aspect changed, are all called Objectivism, the word Objectivism ceases to identify anything.

But this is strictly a personal view and not worth debating, because the debate is not going to change anything. What people call things is not something any debate will alter. People call things what they like; accuracy is seldom the determining factor of what they like. Just as they call all copiers, "Xerox," and all tissues, "Kleenex," the ignorant will call anything remotely philosophical and related to Ayn Rand, "Objectivism."

Obsolete Objectivism

There is another reason the debate does not interest me. I believe it is time for Objectivism to be made obsolete. Ayn Rand's Objectivism was developed over a number of years (The Fountainhead, 1943, Atlas Shrugged, 1957, The Virtue of Selfishness, 1961, The Romantic Manifesto, 1969); but the essentials of Objectivism are over 40 years old.

In all that time, despite the arguments and debates, there has not been a major contribution to philosophy. What have the philosophers been doing all that time? Well, mostly, they have been arguing about who the true guardians of Objectivism are, and over non-essentials, like libertarianism, feminism, and homosexuality.

There has been some very interesting and important research done, mostly of historical interest, but no new philosophical principles have been developed. If you talk to serious Objectivists, one comes to the astonishing conclusion, most Objectivists do not really believe there is any more ground, at least any significant ground, in the field of philosophy that needs to be covered.

This is hardly an objective conclusion. Ayn Rand herself did not believe her philosophy answered all the questions, and even identified areas that needed more work. One such area was aesthetics, for example, and one particular aspect for which she admitted there is no good philosophical theory, is music.

Objectivist Shortcomings

To date, Objectivism is the most complete and correct established philosophy in history. Any new philosophy must begin where Objectivism ends. Even if the material is completely new, Objectivism must be acknowledged and how the new material is integrated with that philosophy must be addressed.

Objectivism does not answer all the questions, however, or even identify them all. All of Objectivist metaphysics, for example, consists of the axioms, the primacy of existence, and the entity verses event theory of cause; there is no Objectivist ontology at all. The discussion of the nature of life consists of a simple definition without any additional but sorely needed development.

The nature of consciousness (perception) actually contains mistakes. Objectivist epistemology is the greatest advance in that field in history, yet it also contains mistakes and is not extensively developed—Ayn Rand herself admitted the largest part of epistemology, propositions, is not addressed at all. (Only the first 130 pages of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is actually Ayn Rand's epistemology.)

The most fully developed aspect of the philosophy is the ethics, but it also is very briefly developed and leaves lots of unanswered questions. Objectivist politics is only partially correct, and Objectivist aesthetics addresses only an application of the field, art. The essential questions of aesthetics, "what is beauty?" is not addressed at all.

My point is not to repudiate Objectivism, or to minimize the importance or significance of the advancements in philosophy and the integration of philosophical principles Objectivism achieved. The amount of ground covered and the incredible insights achieved by Ayn Rand are phenomenal. If one is to know only one philosophy, there is no other choice.

In spite of Objectivism's contributions to the field of philosophy, however, it is not the end of philosophy, only the latest and greatest development in the field. As far as it has taken us, we still have further to go than we have thus far come. The problem is most of those who call themselves Objectivists think we have arrived, when we should actually be starting on our way again.

Breathtaking Ignorance About Firehammer

The following was also said at the above mentioned "Objectivist" site about someone, apparently with the same name as mine:

"The alleged moral depravity of homosexual behavior would be a suitable topic; Mr. Firehammer, we may surmise, would be happy to expatiate. After all, those who don't like what he has to say on the subject can skip his talk."

Who the Mr. Firehammer is that would use the expression, "moral depravity," I do not know. It is certainly an expression I have never used. If he thinks that Firehammer is me, why would anyone think I would want to talk about a philosophical non-issue like homosexuality? I once debated a homosexual who attempted to use Objectivism to promote homosexuality as normal. I spoke my opinion on the matter which is essentially the same as Rand's, and, like she, I regard the subject philosophically non-essential.

The last sentence in this little smear is ironic. It reveals how OINOs (Objectivists in name only) think. "After all, those who don't like what he has to say on the subject can skip his talk." If I were to give a talk on any subject, how would those who have not heard the talk know what I had to say about the subject until they heard me say it? The unwitting admission here is that someone's views on things do not need to be learned from the individual holding them. They can be learned by listening to the smearers and liars; one does not have to learn anything on their own or think for themselves. Most OINOs, obviously, have adopted this policy.