Why Are You Objectivist?

[Danneskjold]

Just wondering what your likes and general dislikes about the philosophy as a whole are, whether or not you are an objectivist you can answer. Seems like there are a lot of people here who would have opinions about that type of thing that vary more than usual.

fine print I reserve the right to use this information for an article for a unpublished article for my journalism class on school where I'm doing a feature article on Objectivism. Once again, posts from anybody works, Objectivist or not.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Victor Pross]

Likes: Reason as an absolute--Freedom as an absolute--The championing of the autonomist individual. Objectivism is a rational philosophical system. A person's elected philosophy can be treated analogously to a computer operating system. Like DOS or Windows on a PC, to use a perfect example I heard, a brain's philosophy will profoundly impact the interpretation of incoming data, the treatment of that data, and the substantial output. The rewards of using Objectivism as my brain's operating system are abundant and cavernous. In my own life, Objectivism has allowed me to release the assertions of time-wasting dogma while focusing my energy on my moral purpose in life: to prosper and to live happily. Objectivism works harmoniously my "brain's nature" as a reality-integrating organ, allowing me to form valid concepts and draw realistic conclusions from any situation in which I find myself. I'm also a better artist: I can more effectively concretize visually my abstractions, the abstraction-theme or "clues" in my paintings.

Dislikes: Ayn Rand’s personal preferences (in art or otherwise) and her casual views being held up as official Objectivist canon.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Chris Grieb]

Jeff; A sense that the world is knowable and can be known by you. A philosophy that really does bring order out of chaos. That the mind works and that your mind works. Ayn Rand being unwilling to look for more evidence of some of her opinions. Hayek and Orwell come to mind.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[bmacwilliam]

Likes: The central role of logic/reason and reality.

Dislikes: The foolish conclusions drawn from not adhering to the above principles.

Bob

[Rich Engle]

Well, I'm not an Objectivist, I'm a me. Spiritually, I am Unitarian Universalist, which has certain intersects with Objectivism. There are many liberating factors that Rand developed that sharpened my outlook on life. I find the dialogue with Objectivist-savvy folk to be generally excellent. Also, there is a strong, rational moral base that gives me great comfort.

And, I'm a blatant capitalist, so it's kind of a natural for me.

[emb021]

I consider myself more of a libertarian (more l then L) then an Objectivist. I have read much of her work, and like many, I like a lot of her philosophy.

I think my likes/dislikes are similiar to others here.

Like: rational, individual-based philosophy based on reality.

Dislikes: Rand personal likes/dislikes taken as Objectivist canon, and Rand's negative attitudes/behaviors being pertetuated by certain Oists.

[BAMF]

Don't forget, Rand's personal likes are not necessarily a part of Objectivism.

[emb021]

Don't forget, Rand's personal likes are not necessarily a part of Objectivism.

The problem is that I understand that, and many Objectivists understand that (I think most on this board would), but many DON'T.

Too often Rand presented her personal likes/dislikes as tho they were part/parcel of Objectivism (which caused a few permanent riffs). Sort of 'you must like X kind of music if you are a true Oist' (which was basically the music she liked, when it came down to it), etc.

Plus, it appears to me that many of Rand's poor behavior characteristics seem to have been picked up by many Objectivists (usually of the ARIan crowd).

Furthermore, some non-Oist are turned off by how Rand behaved (componded by Oist that act the same way) and thus condemn Oism.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Michael Brown

[Judith]

Why am I an Objectivist?

Why not?

I like everything about the basics (i.e., the standing-on-one-foot principles). I share most of Rand's aesthetic tastes as well.

I dislike the fact that she assumed that all people were fundamentally like her. She was, of course, either unaware of, uninterested in, or dismissive of Jungian personality theory, but the facts seem to support the theory that people simply are fundamentally different and that efforts either by themselves or by others to change those fundamental outlooks are futile. While the basic principles of Objectivism are valuable to people of all personality types, Rand seemed to assume that people would practice them in the same way. All of her heroes are NTs, which gets tiring after a while, because one knows that it really is how she sees the world; "a good, honest, rational person is, of course, an NT".

Judith

[PalePower]

Why am I an Objectivist?

Why not?

I like everything about the basics (i.e., the standing-on-one-foot principles). I share most of Rand's aesthetic tastes as well.

I dislike the fact that she assumed that all people were fundamentally like her. She was, of course, either unaware of, uninterested in, or dismissive of Jungian personality theory, but the facts seem to support the theory that people simply are fundamentally different and that efforts either by themselves or by others to change those fundamental outlooks are futile. While the basic principles of Objectivism are valuable to people of all personality types, Rand seemed to assume that people would practice them in the same way. All of her heroes are NTs, which gets tiring after a while, because one knows that it really is how she sees the world; "a good, honest, rational person is, of course, an NT".

Judith

"NT"s??

[studiodekadent]

LIKE:

1. Independence and individuality seen as virtues rather than defects

2. Happiness as good

3. The powerful, heroic, genuinely benevolent vision of life's possibilities

4. The earthliness of the philosophy

5. "You CAN solve your problems. You arent weak and impotent and doomed"

HATE:

1. Certain Objectivist cultists and their deification of Ayn (read: ARI, Prickoff, etc)

2. The attitudes of above and their holding of Rand's personal opinions as canon

3. Sometimes, Rand can appear like she is undervaluing thinkers (although this is not part of her philosophy at all, indeed she reveres thinkers).

[Robert Jones]

I am not an Objectivist. I am not really any "ist" at all, but I am often "pist" at the world around me.

Likes: Objectivist sense-of-life, Romanticism, individualism, capitalism, pro-Americanism, individual liberty, Roark, Francisco, Andrei, Gail Wynand, and Objectivist (and Objectivist sympathizers) writers who have their heads screwed on straight. Worship of Rachmaninoff and Salvador Dali. Objectivists who are not only in the world, but of the world, even if that means disagreeing with other Objectivists.

Dislikes: Randroids, "airbrushing," excommunications, people who aren't just intransigent but rabid atheists, the attitude that photography isn't really an art (but for some inexpicable strange reason, cinematography IS), Peikoff and Schwartz's hysteria. People who don't read outside of the Objectivist "Canon." The whole cant of the article "The Possible Dream," which is determinism at its worst.

[Fran]

"NT"s??

It's an abbreviation for the 'iNtuitive Thinking' temperament in Jungian/Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Jungian or Myers-Briggs personality types are split into 16 personalities, based on whether people are:

Introverted or Extraverted (abbreviated to 'I' or 'E') - this is whether they are energised by being with people (E) or time spent alone (I).

Sensing or iNtuitive (abbreviated to S or N) - this is how people process data; whether they like concretes and what is practical in the world (S), or like to think things up and what is possible (N).

Feeling and Thinking (abbr. 'F' or 'T') - whether people are ruled by their hearts (F) or their heads (T).

Judging or Perceiving (abbr. 'J' or 'P') - whether people like to be organised and plan their time, or be more spontaneous and go with the flow.

From these preferences, the 16 personality types are composed, e.g. INTJ or ESFP, ENFP, ISFJ, etc.

The four temperaments are NT, NF, SP and SJ. Most NTs are the rational, scientific people. NFs are more romantic idealists - the artists, writers, teachers, etc.

This is a quick summary of Myers-Briggs. If you're interested in learning more, I suggest you Google Myers-Briggs - there's a ton of stuff on the web, including free tests as an aid to determining what type you are (don't take the test result as a given of your type). Keirsey is one of the big experts on this. http://www.keirsey.com/

Hope this helps?

Fran

[Fran]

Like: freedom, individualism, capitalism, championing of people's virtues and seeing people as 'good' rather than 'evil', as this is the opposite of what I was brought up with (Christian doctrine of people being inherently sinful). Having a set of ethics to follow. NB's six pillars of self-esteem. Living in a real, knowable, understandable world.

Dislikes: judging certain people as being evil (not just their actions), rather than their actions being a tragic expression of their unment needs. By this I mean that I dislike moralistic judgements as opposed to value judgement; i.e. judging that a person's actions will not meet my needs for trust and safety (value judgement), rather than, because my needs for trust and safety won't be met, this person is bad, wicked and evil (moralistic judgement).

Also dislike: If happiness is my highest goal in life, Objectivism doesn't aid my clarity and understanding of my own inner world, nor does it provide much in the way as a practical tool as to how best meet my needs.

This is possibly best illustrated with an example, from learning and using NVC (non-violent communication) I learnt that my feelings are an inner guide as to whether my needs are being met or not. These being universal needs such as visibility, understanding, trust, safety, etc. If they are being met, I feel (e.g.) happy; if they're not being met I feel (e.g.) sad. From my feelings I can work out what my need might be. If I'm feeling lonely, I probably have a need for companionship, and once I know what that need is I have a better chance of meeting it. I know when I have identified the correct need, because a part of me relaxes inside. And if I clearly express my need to other people, I have a better chance of getting that need met.

Of course, no one is here to meet my needs, but I know from experience that if I am clear about what needs I will be meeting for another person, I feel much more compelled to try and meet them. This is because one of my greatest needs is to contribute to another person's well-being. I also learnt that people don't clash on the need level, they clash on the strategy level. i.e. everybody shares the same fundamental human needs, it is the strategies that they try and employ in order to meet those needs that cause conflict.

[Danneskjold]

Fran,

"Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957) {WMail Issues #35 & #62}

PLAYBOY: Should one ignore emotions altogether, rule them out of one's life entirely?

RAND: Of course not. One should merely keep them in their place. An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause.

I think that pretty much covers the second half of your dislikes.

[Fran]

My point was that it doesn't give me the clarity and guidance in understanding what my values are. What makes one person happy would make another person miserable. I am deliriously happy drawing and painting, another person would hate this. The Objectivist literature doesn't seem to offer anything, in the way of a practical nature, in helping me to discover those things that bring me happiness - to figure these things out I had to look elsewhere.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Fran

[Judith]

My point was that it doesn't give me the clarity and guidance in understanding what my values are. What makes one person happy would make another person miserable. I am deliriously happy drawing and painting, another person would hate this. The Objectivist literature doesn't seem to offer anything, in the way of a practical nature, in helping me to discover those things that bring me happiness - to figure these things out I had to look elsewhere.

Nathaniel Branden, in his "Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand", said something to the effect that Rand projected this magnificent vision of what life could be, but didn't provide a whole lot of technology regarding how to get there. If I understand you correctly, Fran, that might be to what you're referring. Nathaniel has done a huge amount of technology-development in that sense, and a lot more remains to be done.

Thanks, by the way, for answering Elizabeth's question about what an "NT" is. Silly me -- I just assume that everyone had read the thread about personality type under "Psychology". Since there are many fora I never read at all myself, I shouldn't make those assumptions!

Judith

[Fran]

Nathaniel Branden, in his "Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand", said something to the effect that Rand projected this magnificent vision of what life could be, but didn't provide a whole lot of technology regarding how to get there. If I understand you correctly, Fran, that might be to what you're referring. Nathaniel has done a huge amount of technology-development in that sense, and a lot more remains to be done.

Judith

Thanks Judith, that is what I'm referring to. NB's books certainly have helped, but I didn't read them for many years after first discovering Rand. Mainly because LP had painted him as 'evil' and it would have been tantamount to heresy to read his stuff - sad really, I'm the one who missed out. Although I am grateful for the understanding and learning that I've gotten from NB's books, like you said, much still remains to be done and his work only meets some of my needs.

Fran

P.S. you're welcome about the MBTI explanation.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Fran

[SaulOhio]

Objectivism fits in very well with the way I've always thought as long as I have been old enough to think on my own. What Objectivism and Ayn Rand did was to give me the words to explain and justify the way I think. I always believed that reason was the way to know reality, through natural explanations, but I couldn't have properly ariculated a proper defense of it without Objectivist metaphysics and causality based on the axiom of Identity. As long as I have known about the issue of self-interest vs. altruism, I have believed that if I didn't have the right to my own happiness, if another person's suffering created an obligation to give up my own happiness, then nobody could morally be happy. This would mean that there could be no happiness in the world at all, and life would not be worth living. I realized I had the right to my own happiness, and that I would have to learn to find it despite any feelings of pity or sympathy for those who are suffering. Objectivism provided me with a much more solid rational basis for my self-interest.

The one big thing about Objectivism, besides the dogmatism of some Objectivists and the schizms, is the tendency of some Objectivists to reject a concept entirely if Ayn Rand, or some Objectivist, argued against its popular useage. One example is the principle of falsifiability in science. The concept originated with more pragmatist thinkers, I think Popper. (I haven't read Popper, so I can't say first-hand he was pragmatist.) It is part of the school of thinking that in order for an idea to be valid science it has to be able to be useful in explaining phenomena and making falsifiable predictions. This has been interpreted as pragmatism, and that may be how it is interpreted by a lot of people. But it is still a valid test for the scientific validity of an idea. IF an idea corresponds to reality, then it will be usful in explaining it and making predictions. This is actuallya necessary part of the scientific method. You make predictions based on your theory, and any discrapancy between the predictions and observation allows you to either refine the theory or replace it with a better one by showing how the theory fails to correspond to reality.

This whole discussion might even cause some Objectivist to accuse me of accepting a theory-practice dichotomy.

The same is true of other concepts, such as toleration and benevolence.

I think Ayn Rand herself promoted this attitude, maybe inadvertently, by the forceful way she often argued against the common useage of certain concepts. I'd have to go back to the literature to find examples.

[SaulOhio]

What I should say is that Ayn Rand often argued against a common useage of a word without providing a valid alternative concept in its place.