Left, Right ...?


anthony

Recommended Posts

People,

This is a difficult question to ask, since I don't like this simplistic, collective, nomenclature, and I'm not being gratuitously confrontational - it is a sincere enquiry.

With the latest imbroglio at ARI, and with many Objectivists having to question their loyalties, and their past assumptions --

is it possible that Objectivists have been, and now perhaps increasingly so, split into the traditional Left, Right, Centrist, and Independent, 'parties'?

Because, whether it is bombing Iran, or gay marriage, or dozens of other disagreements, I just don't get how such rational thinkers, all possessing identical facts and principles, can always be at loggerheads.

Conservative Objectivists? Liberal Objectivists? I dislike the implications, but does it make any sense?

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony wrote:

Because, whether it is bombing Iran, or gay marriage, or dozens of other disagreements, I just don't get how such rational thinkers, all possessing identical facts and principles, can always be at loggerheads . . . . Conservative Objectivists? Liberal Objectivists? I dislike the implications, but does it make any sense?

end quote

Well, it is a new way of looking at it. Disagreements (legitimate or not) always exist between rational people, and this situation once again proves why rational anarchy is without a referent in reality.

I think some *conclusions* are arrived at rationally but began in an individual’s innate, or early sense of life assumptions. A small twist in fate, or a slightly flawed early premise in a chain of logic, can lead to an almost ordained conclusion later in life. It is very hard too dissuade someone who has *thought it through* but is wrong in their thought or behavior.

Two disputes you mentioned:

Bombing Iran: at some point a rational threat should be pre-empted before it needs to be retaliated against. Israel is closer to that rational threat and will act first. We should support them because we would be second to be nuked.

Gay marriage: equal protection under the law will rightfully be upheld by The Supreme Court. Yet I see no reason to not call it a *union* or a hyphenated “marriage” since there is already a definition of marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman.

Phobias, biases, likes, dislikes, and insecurities lead to seemingly contradictory conclusions. Rand was once the arbiter of disputes, but there never was a substitute for independent, scientific verification. “Check your premises,” was definitely one of her best thoughts about contradictory *beliefs.*

Good topic.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phobias, biases, likes, dislikes, and insecurities lead to seemingly contradictory conclusions. Rand was once the arbiter of disputes, but there never was a substitute for independent, scientific verification. “Check your premises,” was definitely one of her best thoughts about contradictory *beliefs.*

Good topic.

Peter

Thanks, Peter.

I think to try to pretend that we don't have any subjective influences and predispositions, that brought us into Objectivism, and makes us take certain positions (and sometimes defend them to death ;) can lead to a bunch of rationalising.

That's very harmful. So, I think, admit them up front, and rationality quite quickly takes over, and holds sway.

One part of integration is that objective values and lesser subjective ones, co-exist comfortably, don't you think?

As a little 'breast-baring', I have little doubt that what brought me into O'ism - apart from everything else, I must emphasise - was my early loathing of anything that reeked of authoritarianism.

What began as no more than immature rebelliousness though, has gradually refined into a truer independence, of the Objectivist model, I'm happy to say. (But I still find it hard to put up with power and authority.)

To get back on point, many Objectivists seem to have come from conservative backgrounds, and I've been wondering if this is influential, still.

I'll venture this only as analogy: could it be said that early schisms broke along rough party lines? For instance, the 'liberal' tolerationism of David Kelly, from the 'right-wing' orthodoxy of ARI?

As I said, just metaphorically, and within the context of O'ism, not of American politics.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me suggest a distinction that doesn't use the terminology of political labels. I was reminded of this when I read Peikoff's latest salvo in the McCaskey situation.

One of the more psychologically interesting lines in his letter was his dismissive reference to a magazine founder and a "Phd with a podcast", i.e., Biddle and Hsieh. Think about that for a second. Here are two people who--whether anybody here likes it or not--have been long-time Ortho O's. DH in particular has been a strong supporter of Peikoff. Hell, I got banned from her site for a pun that made more or less fun of Peikoff. Notwithstanding this, Peikoff clearly had no hesitation in reducing Biddle and Hsieh--people who have more or less devoted their lives to the Objectivist movement--to the ash heap of Objectivism. Such actions, made in connection with long-time insiders/supporters--reveals that Peikoff is not particularly concerned with "Movement Objectivism"--whether in the academy or in the popular culture or in politics.

I think the differences you are referring can be reduced to the question of whether, in response to such controversies, any given Objectivist (1) is interested in spreading Objectivism as a movement ("let's take over the philosophy departments at our universitys...") or, (2)protecting/worshipping/defending the legacy of Ayn Rand at all costs. In this context, I believe this can be reduced to a "sense of life" primary, more or less.

I can't claim that this explains all of the differences among O's, but it explains the reaction that many O's have to controversies generated when, for instance, Peikoff goes into his "bombs away!" mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony wrote:

So, I think, admit them up front, and rationality quite quickly takes over, and holds sway. One part of integration is that objective values and lesser subjective ones, co-exist comfortably, don't you think?

end quote

What another odd, new thought, Tony. The objective and subjective live side by side in me in harmony, not incompatible in any way. I was never able to reprogram my subjective side (per Rand’s ideal man) to be totally objective (per her.)

Check your premises, Ayn scolded. Trace a concept to its initial precepts. Examine automatic but non-objective responses! Sheesh. So much psychologizing. I remember trying for a few weeks.

But now I know that EVEN the Randian, Brandian suggestion that our subjective thinking is flawed assumes that we are born or destined to grow into flawed beings without Objectivism. And Rand and Nathan were an authority on your psyche, right? That’s almost a remake of Christianity’s *Original Sin.* Xray seems to exemplify that view.

Tony wrote:

To get back on point, many Objectivists seem to have come from conservative backgrounds, and I've been wondering if this is influential, still.

end quote

I come from a military family that was publicly very conservative, for appearances, but in private not so conservative. Yet, we three kids grew up to be productive and honest. I fit right in with every Code of Conduct I came across, UVA’s, to the Army’s, and to Rand’s. I still live by those original premises. My reputation around Delmarva is that I am “as honest as the day is long,” (which was written on a personal recommendation for a job.)

My word is my bond, is still one of my favorite sayings. People who know me take some advantage of the fact. They know I won’t lie, though I may decide not to answer a personal question. They know that a hand shake or a nod of my head is all it takes for it to be true.

The person who introduced me to Atlas Shrugged was interested in me psychologically. I remember him giving me a list of about one hundred questions before I read “Atlas Shrugged,” that I answered truthfully. He thought I was a “natural objectivist.”

I have mostly known ARI Objectivists in California and in the Mid Atlantic States. All seemed fairly conservative in their upbringings with the more liberal thinking and dress from Californian O’ists.

PDS wrote:

Notwithstanding this, Peikoff clearly had no hesitation in reducing Biddle and Hsieh--people who have more or less devoted their lives to the Objectivist movement--to the ash heap of Objectivism . . . In this context, I believe this can be reduced to a "sense of life" primary, more or less.

end quote

That is horrible, I agree. The spread of Objectism is secondary to him. The prosperity of fellow Objectivists is secondary to him. Peikoff saying what he did is similar to when a screen protagonist turns into a werewolf. What is wrong with all these Objectivists who pass moral judgment, then ban and shun others for a minor difference of opinion?

PDS wrote:

I can't claim that this explains all of the differences among O's, but it explains the reaction that many O's have to controversies generated when, for instance, Peikoff goes into his "bombs away!" mode.

end quote

At the time she said it and now, I still agree with Rand about nuking the Soviet Union, though I dread the decision and I am glad it was never done. I am also happy that Rand was not the first female president. She came to that “bombs away” objective decision after living her early life in the Soviet Union. I grant her sense of life, the benefit of the doubt. Leonard seems to have always lived a privileged American life.

The Fox show “The Right All Along,” premiered with mostly late 1950, and 1960s conservatism. Goldwater wanted to use nukes in Vietnam. At the time I agreed with him. After I exited the army in 1969, though not before, I started to agree with Rand that occupying Vietnam was a mistake, but only after a couple of years of eye witness testimony and thinking.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now