Full Version: Rational life in a irrational society?
I remember reading back in the early seventies an article authored by Rand (Objectivist Newsletter) entitled "How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society? It was a question submitted by a reader. I would appreciate it if anyone having it, could post it here. Thank you.
It is in VoS and you can look here at the Ayn Rand Lexicon
Thank you. It seems quite appropriate, especially in today's intellectual cesspool.
QUOTE(Ted Keer @ Nov 7 2008, 08:44 PM) 
It is in VoS and you can look here at the Ayn Rand Lexicon
In particular, rational upright folk must never accept the guilt trip that the bastards are trying to lay on them. To accept this (non) guilt is to accept destruction.
Ba'al Chatzaf
To live a rational life in an irrational society, you must never fail to pass moral judgement.
That does beg many questions:
The term "rational" carries ambivalent meanings that Objectivists in particular must be aware of. At the introductory meeting of the Basic Principles course offered in Cleveland in 1966, someone asked Nathaniel Branden if "objectivism" is the same as "rationalism" or "realism." He said that the answer is yes -- with lowercase letters. Those all stand opposed to faith and mysticism, the irrational and so forth. He added that with capital letters, they mean very different things and capital-O Objectivism stands apart from the others.
How does one lead a "rationalist" -- as opposed to "empiricist" -- life is not the question, but it could be. I point out that Objectivism is not about a rational life, but an objective one: logically consistent and empirically verifiable. Capital-O Objectivism is a modern instantiation of "rational-empiricism" an early 19th century attempt at clarifying or validating "common sense."
As such, Objectivism is a moral philosophy whose metaphysical foundation is the same as that called "the scientific method." The scientific method can be explained to children as a three-step process. It can be elaborated into eleven steps. Most books in high school and college use a five-step checklist. Rand said almost nothing about this. "Reality is the final arbiter" is one statement. But Rand did not elaborate on how one arbitrates with reality... or with society...
Objectivists never sanction their destroyers, but according to Ernst Samhaber a good merchant never argues religion with his client. If I cared about the religions of the people I trade with, I would never shop at a convenience store. If I see someone with a WWJD writst band, would that be an opportunity for us to engage in mutual rebukes? It could be amusing to watch.
My accountant was very secular until he and his wife had two girls. Herself from a non-observant family because her mother was not Jewish, suddenly, she cared. A lot. So, he dug out the books, and relearned; and we accepted their invitations to see the girls' bat-mitzvah[plural]. I might have pointed out that they were observing something unorthodox, to say nothing of irrational. I did not. He stayed my accountant. I stayed his client. You might say that I "passed moral judgement" snickering under my breath at these silly people mumbling in a dead language, just as I had at my own family doing just about the same things in another dead language. (It is shocking how similar the services are among Muslims, Jews, and Christians. You'd think they could get along better. Oh! Wait! That's what this is about: they are all not failing to pass moral judgement on each other! Just like Objectivists. Is Objectivism a religion? Oh! No! See, we're "rational" and those people are "mystics.")
How do you lead a rational life in an irrational society?
Never fail to see the irony in humanity.
I have one more for you -- you can google this -- while researching the Tiv people of West Africa, anthropologist Laura Bohannan attempted to explain the story of Hamlet. "Wait!" the old man said. "There is no such thing as a ghost!" Furthermore, the old man said, we accept it that your people have different clothes and different marriage customs, but everyone is the same everywhere, really, so your own people must not believe in ghosts, either, do they?
Objectivism holds that people are the same everywhere. We might wear different clothes and have different marriage customs, but all humans are rational, volitional beings.
Are they?
Who has the irrational society: the Tiv, who do not believe in ghosts, or the English who do?
That does beg many questions:
- What is a rational life?
- Why do you need one?
- What is an irrational society?
- What is a society?
- How can a society be "rational" or "irrational"?
- What is the moral?
- What is the standard of judgement?
- What is the means of judgement?
The term "rational" carries ambivalent meanings that Objectivists in particular must be aware of. At the introductory meeting of the Basic Principles course offered in Cleveland in 1966, someone asked Nathaniel Branden if "objectivism" is the same as "rationalism" or "realism." He said that the answer is yes -- with lowercase letters. Those all stand opposed to faith and mysticism, the irrational and so forth. He added that with capital letters, they mean very different things and capital-O Objectivism stands apart from the others.
How does one lead a "rationalist" -- as opposed to "empiricist" -- life is not the question, but it could be. I point out that Objectivism is not about a rational life, but an objective one: logically consistent and empirically verifiable. Capital-O Objectivism is a modern instantiation of "rational-empiricism" an early 19th century attempt at clarifying or validating "common sense."
As such, Objectivism is a moral philosophy whose metaphysical foundation is the same as that called "the scientific method." The scientific method can be explained to children as a three-step process. It can be elaborated into eleven steps. Most books in high school and college use a five-step checklist. Rand said almost nothing about this. "Reality is the final arbiter" is one statement. But Rand did not elaborate on how one arbitrates with reality... or with society...
Objectivists never sanction their destroyers, but according to Ernst Samhaber a good merchant never argues religion with his client. If I cared about the religions of the people I trade with, I would never shop at a convenience store. If I see someone with a WWJD writst band, would that be an opportunity for us to engage in mutual rebukes? It could be amusing to watch.
My accountant was very secular until he and his wife had two girls. Herself from a non-observant family because her mother was not Jewish, suddenly, she cared. A lot. So, he dug out the books, and relearned; and we accepted their invitations to see the girls' bat-mitzvah[plural]. I might have pointed out that they were observing something unorthodox, to say nothing of irrational. I did not. He stayed my accountant. I stayed his client. You might say that I "passed moral judgement" snickering under my breath at these silly people mumbling in a dead language, just as I had at my own family doing just about the same things in another dead language. (It is shocking how similar the services are among Muslims, Jews, and Christians. You'd think they could get along better. Oh! Wait! That's what this is about: they are all not failing to pass moral judgement on each other! Just like Objectivists. Is Objectivism a religion? Oh! No! See, we're "rational" and those people are "mystics.")
How do you lead a rational life in an irrational society?
Never fail to see the irony in humanity.
I have one more for you -- you can google this -- while researching the Tiv people of West Africa, anthropologist Laura Bohannan attempted to explain the story of Hamlet. "Wait!" the old man said. "There is no such thing as a ghost!" Furthermore, the old man said, we accept it that your people have different clothes and different marriage customs, but everyone is the same everywhere, really, so your own people must not believe in ghosts, either, do they?
Objectivism holds that people are the same everywhere. We might wear different clothes and have different marriage customs, but all humans are rational, volitional beings.
Are they?
Who has the irrational society: the Tiv, who do not believe in ghosts, or the English who do?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.