What Objectivism means (or meant) to a non-objectivist.

[BaalChatzaf]

I am not an Objectivist, nor have I ever been. However, after reading -Atlas Shrugged- in 1959 or 1960 (I was in my mid twenties at the time) a flash of hope arose in me. Here was a work and a movement that asked and made All the Important Questions accessible to the non-academic public. Finally a nucleus around which those in the great public might organize and focus their pro-libertarian or pro-liberty inclinations and aspirations. I even subscribed to The Objectivist. Then in 1968 came the great disillusionment. The fallout of which was to promote the prominence of a man who has (in my estimation) a second rate mind, to wit, Leonard Peikof, and then the split with David Kelley. At this point I had enough of the movement. I resolved to cherry pick what I considered to be the best that the Objectivist folk had to offer and ignore the rest.

My great disappointment with the Objectivist movement has been its bigoted and anti-intellectual denigration of modern science, particularly physics promoted by prominent Objectivists. Not that there are not serious issues in physics that really need attention. There most certainly are. But the intellectuals associated with the Objectivist movement, largely have missed out on this important area. Physics begets Engineering which begets Technology which is the only thing that is going to keep our nation competitive in the world economy.

And now all this in-fighting. God dammit. Do you know what this looks like to outsiders? It is what we call in Yiddish -a shondah-, a shameful thing.

I will close with a small joke:

There is a ship wreck and the survivors swim toward an island.

Two Englishmen come ashore and go to opposite ends of the island because they have not been introduced.

Two Germans come ashore and build an autobahn across the island.

Two Americans come ashore and open a fast food chain.

Two Objectivists come ashore and start three Objectivst discussion groups. One that each will post to and a third that neither will have anything to do with. *

Ba'al Chatzaf

*in the original version of the joke, two Jews come ashore and build three synagogues, one that each attends and a third that neither will set foot in.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

For an "outsider," you sure post a lot on Objectivist sites.

I certainly don't see you going anywhere anytime soon. So regardless of what it "looks like" to you, I don't see any practical effect. Some of your comments don't look very good to Objectivists, either.

Michael

[georgedonnelly]

i think one can separate the "movement" (LOL) of Objectivism from the philosophy. So one can be an objectivist and yet maintain strong distate for the things you mentioned. By Objectivism/objectivist I am referring to Ayn Rand's works of philosophy and not any others'. Nor am I referring to her personality foibles.

Good joke!

[Mike11]

i think one can separate the "movement" (LOL) of Objectivism from the philosophy.

Not as much as I'd like anyway. The us-them puritanical thinking is largely built in. The fictional characters in AS for example support an us-them view and the ideas included in "Philophical Detection" led directly to "Fact and Value" in endorsing the distortion of and condemning of an opponent's view.

Any attempt to separate Objectivism from the Body of Rand, in my eyes anyway, pretty well has to be an attack on the Objectivist philosophy if you want any break in areas ranging from music, american history, or sex.

[John Dailey]

Ba'al (Bob?):

~ Gotta admit (as Cartman would say, "Gah-Dammit!"), the joke w-a-s funny. Mainly because, nowadays, for those of us in-the-know, quite believable...literally; I mean, look at the most recent goings-on (going-ons?), right?

~ However, according to your complaint herein, your dis-illusions seem not about the 'philosophy', but, with the 'movement', as it's...splinteredly (d?)evolved; if, indeed, 'movement' is the appropriate term here. I'd call them 'movementS', clearly in differing directions. Whatever, you've made clear that your prob is with their take on certain 'scientific' views.

~ What would *you* say that the 'philosophy' itself, (as Rand would add...'per se'), implies about these scientific views, which you would thereby disagree with?

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 28, 2008 by John Dailey

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al (Bob?):

~ What would *you* say that the 'philosophy' itself, (as Rand would add...'per se'), implies about these scientific views, which you would thereby disagree with?

LLAP

J:D

Fair question. Objectivism (the philosophy) has a 90 + percent overlap with my own philosophy Reality Lite ™. My main point of departure from the Objectivists is in the areas of morality and aesthetics. I consider morality a condition that arises from the fact the humans live in families and communities. True hermit humans are so rare as to be negligible. Morality and ethics is about how to relate to others. I also consider aesthetics purely subjective. A matter of taste. One man's Rembrant is another man's Picasso. On the matter of ontology the O'ists and I are on the same page. Reality is Real. Thee is an Out There out there. On the matter of knowledge, all things known are ultimately derived from what is experienced through the senses. Facts first (what is Out There), feelings, inferences and hunches second. Facts Rule, Theories Serve.

I also consider Romanticism pure drek. I take things as they are, not as I would like them to be. My likes and dislikes are not a requirement on Nature to satisfy. So in that sense I am a naturalist. What is, is. What can be? Who knows?

As to Man being heroic. Weeeeeell. Some are and some are not. But we are all the smartest apes in the Monkey House. I take humans to be the latest version of the hominid order. We are 95 percent rational 52 percent of the time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

I like the joke too.

[georgedonnelly]

I also consider Romanticism pure drek. I take things as they are, not as I would like them to be. My likes and dislikes are not a requirement on Nature to satisfy. So in that sense I am a naturalist. What is, is. What can be? Who knows?

As to Man being heroic. Weeeeeell. Some are and some are not. But we are all the smartest apes in the Monkey House. I take humans to be the latest version of the hominid order. We are 95 percent rational 52 percent of the time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Romanticism is a style of art, art being a selective recreation of reality based on the artist's metaphysical value judgments (AR paraphrase). Art is about a person imagining their ideal world, or commenting on how things could be. Sure it can also be a comment on how things are or were.

Who knows what can be? No one. But that's irrelevant precisely because it is art. It's not a history text or a news photo.

Romanticism isn't the be-all and end-all but it's quite the opposite of drek.

As to man being heroic, that is an ideal. Art is about ideals, not strictly about representing reality.

[BaalChatzaf]

As to man being heroic, that is an ideal. Art is about ideals, not strictly about representing reality.

I gave up idealism for lent about forty years ago. I take things as they are, although I do not always accept or acquiesce to things as they are. What is, is. What can be changed? One must see. I see the human race as a blunderful species. Somehow we muck and grind our way through. Since I don't expect too much I am rarely disappointed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[georgedonnelly]

What is, is. What can be changed? One must see.

What can be changed? A lot. We must make plans, imagine, brainstorm and work hard and smart to make our ideals, the best in us, become 'what is'.

[Wolf DeVoon]

What is, is. What can be changed? One must see.

What can be changed? A lot. We must make plans, imagine, brainstorm and work hard and smart to make our ideals, the best in us, become 'what is'.

George, it's generational. You're a young man talking to a grandpa. You're both right. I'm halfway in the middle, most of my arc already baked in. Now I'm waiting to see whether it made any difference. Sometimes we don't get to see results in our lifetime. Anyway, I wanted to say hello because you want to be a novelist. Long , long row to hoe. You'll need every atom of that optimism and idealism.

[georgedonnelly]

The us-them puritanical thinking is largely built in.

To some extent this is required for any body of ideas to be coherent. A philosophy becomes meaningless if there's isn't something outside of it to bound what it is from what it is not.

Objectivism says the individual is inviolate. If someone says, well, that's nice, but we need mandatory income taxes and we need some regulation and abortion has to be illegal, then they are plainly occupying an incorrect philosophical position with respect to Objectivism.

How can an Objectivist have any other reaction but to repudiate such a person as an Objectivist? In other words, if such a person claims to be an Objectivist, it is a falsehood and must be identified as such.

Less significant differences of opinion or interpretation might not warrant such a reaction. I like the idea of building a big tent around the solid tenets of Objectivism.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of all the schisms. From what I have read they seem like molehills made into mountains. But at some level this so-called "us-them" thinking is an absolute requirement of any serious philosophy and I wouldn't have Objectivism without it. That's not to say that we can't dialog with others who aren't Objectivists.

So I don't see how what you call the 'us-them' thinking in her written works of philosophy is necessarily a problem. Maybe you can elaborate?

Edit: Thanks Wolf.

Edited January 28, 2008 by George Donnelly

[sjw]

The us-them puritanical thinking is largely built in.

To some extent this is required for any body of ideas to be coherent. A philosophy becomes meaningless if there's isn't something outside of it to bound what it is from what it is not.

This is an equivocation between "body of ideas" and "ideas of individual adherents". A body of ideas does not require naming who does and does not belong in order to be coherent.

Furthermore, I think it has been harmful to the cause of individual rights for Objectivists to be so obsessed with who does and does not subscribe to the whole philosophy.

Whether or not someone is truly "Objectivist" is a matter for the individual to decide himself. He can reap the benefits of practicing a rational philosophy consistent--or not. It is no skin off of anyone's nose if he does not except that individual. And it is simply a religion if the presumption is made for the individual as to which parts of the philosophy are true or not. Everyone should accept only those parts of the philosophy they can agree with.

On the other hand, it is crucial for fellow rights-lovers to band together against the collectivists. Objectivism is an abysmal failure as a cultural movement, precisely because it divides those who would have common ground on this most important social cause rather than unite us. If the Founding Fathers, who so-called "Objectivists" so loudly proclaim as heros, were among us, then you can be certain that those very same Objectivists would decry them as evil and viciously juxtapose images of them with symbols of death. As TAS recently has done to Ron Paul.

Self-proclaimed Objectivists have made themselves irrelevant to the culture--and sadly, given how they act, that is a good thing.

Shayne

[tjohnson]

On the other hand, it is crucial for fellow rights-lovers to band together against the collectivists. Objectivism is an abysmal failure as a cultural movement, precisely because it divides those who would have common ground on this most important social cause rather than unite us. If the Founding Fathers, who so-called "Objectivists" so loudly proclaim as heros, were among us, then you can be certain that those very same Objectivists would decry them as evil and viciously juxtapose images of them with symbols of death. As TAS recently has done to Ron Paul.

Self-proclaimed Objectivists have made themselves irrelevant to the culture--and sadly, given how they act, that is a good thing.

Shayne

Maybe the strong emphasis on "individualism" in objectivism works against forming a relatively strong unified movement, like we have witnessed in science. In science there are methods in place for dispute resolution, mainly the scientific method, etc., but objectivism has no such empirical grounding.

[georgedonnelly]

A body of ideas does not require naming who does and does not belong in order to be coherent.

Of course not.

However, there is need to identify which views are consistent with the philosophy and which are antithetical to it.

[sjw]

Maybe the strong emphasis on "individualism" in objectivism works against forming a relatively strong unified movement, like we have witnessed in science. In science there are methods in place for dispute resolution, mainly the scientific method, etc., but objectivism has no such empirical grounding.

What you are saying means that individualism by nature is always going to be overrun by collectivism. Since the moral is the practical, you're clearly wrong. You need to check your premises.

Shayne

[sjw]

However, there is need to identify which views are consistent with the philosophy and which are antithetical to it.

If I need an authority to do that for me then the philosophy isn't a coherent body of knowledge in the first place. So you're making a circular argument.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

Maybe the strong emphasis on "individualism" in objectivism works against forming a relatively strong unified movement, like we have witnessed in science. In science there are methods in place for dispute resolution, mainly the scientific method, etc., but objectivism has no such empirical grounding.

What you are saying means that individualism by nature is always going to be overrun by collectivism. Since the moral is the practical, you're clearly wrong. You need to check your premises.

I think that is an exaggeration of what he is saying.

I think the failure of objectivism to congeal as a movement may have something to do with these phenomena:

- AR's most popular work, Atlas Shrugged, is very open to wrong interpretations of what her philosophy is. While it caught the attention of a lot of good people for all the right reasons it also was used by small-minded people to jump to all the wrong conclusions.

- The world is still very much in the collectivist grip, even in the caplistic-ish nations. Many hold self-sacrifice as their fundamental ideal, refuse to accept the concept of personal responsibility and demand social safety nets from their governments. That is a huge barrier.

- AR said she didn't want a movement IIRC (?). It seemed like she worked against any kind of movement or organization. She badmouthed the Libertarians, a lesser evil. In fact I think she said people shouldn't even vote, or maybe that was Peikoff. In any case, Objectivism seems to be about teaching, learning, writing and speaking; and not about organizing or working for change, if you listen to Ayn Rand.

[georgedonnelly]

However, there is need to identify which views are consistent with the philosophy and which are antithetical to it.

If I need an authority to do that for me then the philosophy isn't a coherent body of knowledge in the first place. So you're making a circular argument.

I don't remember saying "an authority" was needed.

[sjw]

- AR said she didn't want a movement IIRC (?). It seemed like she worked against any kind of movement or organization. She badmouthed the Libertarians, a lesser evil. In fact I think she said people shouldn't even vote, or maybe that was Peikoff. In any case, Objectivism seems to be about teaching, learning, writing and speaking; and not about organizing or working for change, if you listen to Ayn Rand.

It would be fine if ARI viewed itself as a teaching organization. But they don't. They brainwash Objectivists into thinking that political activism is wrong. They not only do not encourage like minds to band together for common cause, they positively discourage such activity. They *are* activists--against activism. And part of their agenda is this divisive, faction-creating, pseudo-religion purity thing. They, and TAS, have created an absolute mess. They are realizing Plato's "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

Many hold self-sacrifice as their fundamental ideal, refuse to accept the concept of personal responsibility and demand social safety nets from their governments. That is a huge barrier.

Any barrier is too huge if you not only don't bother trying to breach it, but worse, discourage other men from doing so.

Shayne

[sjw]

However, there is need to identify which views are consistent with the philosophy and which are antithetical to it.

If I need an authority to do that for me then the philosophy isn't a coherent body of knowledge in the first place. So you're making a circular argument.

I don't remember saying "an authority" was needed.

Well you implied it before, and yet again just now by not denying the implication. And if you don't think authority is needed, then what are you saying? That you wholeheartedly agree with my position here? I mean if all you're saying is that I've not interpreted you correctly and you wholeheartedly embrace my view, then I'm not about to argue with you.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

I don't remember saying "an authority" was needed.

Well you implied it before, and yet again just now by not denying the implication.

You are projecting something onto what I said. I never implied it and because of that I have no need to deny the nonexistent implication that you projected.

I thought I was clear but I'll restate. Mike 11 said "The us-them puritanical thinking is largely built in [ to Objectivism]". I said that without some amount of drawing lines delineating what is consistent with the philosophy and what is not, the philosophy becomes meaningless.

[sjw]

You are projecting something onto what I said. I never implied it and because of that I have no need to deny the nonexistent implication that you projected.

I disagree.

I thought I was clear but I'll restate. Mike 11 said "The us-them puritanical thinking is largely built in [ to Objectivism]". I said that without some amount of drawing lines delineating what is consistent with the philosophy and what is not, the philosophy becomes meaningless.

This is the equivocation I mentioned earlier. To say that a philosophy is this and not that does not imply an us/them dichotomy. To draw lines is precisely: to identify what any philosophy is. That does not imply that any philosophy requires puritanical us-them thinking.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

This is the equivocation I mentioned earlier. To say that a philosophy is this and not that does not imply an us/them dichotomy. To draw lines is precisely: to identify what any philosophy is. That does not imply that any philosophy requires puritanical us-them thinking.

What I am saying is that a clearly defined philosophy such as objectivism requires a certain amount of "us-them" thinking in order for it remain meaningful; in order for it to keep it's integrity. We say "I am, therefore I'll think." (AR), they say "I think, therefore I am." (EK). There is no way to reconcile these two statements. They conflict. Therefore, to put it crudely, there is "us" and there is "them" and never the twain shall meet. I know very little about the objectivist schisms and am not attempting to comment on them.

I'm not equivocating and my arguments are not circular. Your choice of words borders on insulting and may be detrimental to a free exchange of ideas.

I plan to make this my last post on this thread.

[sjw]

I'm not equivocating and my arguments are not circular.

You continue to equivocate while disagreeing with me in spite of refusing to address my points.

I plan to make this my last post on this thread.

Us-them thinking. Ironic.

Shayne