The Complexity of Reality

[Charles R. Anderson]

Jenna,

You wrote:

Basically, the people who matter don't mind, and the people who mind don't matter! Smile

This is very wise. When I was still a boy, I used to counsel my little sisters when they came home from school very upset about some unkind remark made by someone, that if the person was not someone they really respected, then the remark was of little consequence. If they respected the person, then they should examine it and decide whether they had done something to deserve it. If they had not, then they should try to figure out how the person had misunderstood them or simply go talk to the person about it. But, the key thing here is to judge the importance of the remark based upon an accurate assessment of the person's character. In other words, consider the source.

And never forget that your time and effort are valuable. Give them to good and deserving people, but ration the time and effort you give to the unworthy severely. Of course, be of a benevolent mindset with people of unknown character, but once you know their character, act on what you know.

Isn't it amazing how many useful lessons we can learn as children?

[Charles R. Anderson]

Michael,

I agree that your focus is primarily on reality also! That focus and the fact that the people posting on Objectivist Living share it, is what makes this site so valuable. I really have greatly enjoyed my conversations here with the many interesting, intelligent, wise, benevolent, and fun people that you and Kat have drawn to this site.

Thank you Michael. Thank you Kat.

Your mention of a Beta Version triggered another thought. With a radical new development of philosophy such as Ayn Rand's development of Objectivism was, it is totally unreasonable to expect that there will be no bugs in the software. There is bound to be a need for some additional subroutine. There is bound to be some subroutine that is not working right under all initial conditions upon entering it. Rand's Objectivism was a Beta Version. A very impressive Beta Version, but still a Beta Version.

We have many a subroutine still to write and we have yet to examine all the initial conditions with which a person may enter every subroutine. We must fix the bugs and finish the program. I think the program is both very fixable and amenable to completion.

How do you know you are the renegade? Maybe you are right and everyone else is wrong or less right? If you develop a philosophy based upon your most rational assessment of reality, then maybe everyone else who disagrees with you is not as good an Objectivist as you are.

[JennaW]

I hope to meet you and your daughter soon-- if she's at RIT, she might have a chance to meet me, since I grew up in Rochester and am considering applying to U of R. However, I am also considering a lot of schools all over the US too, so I might end up somewhere else in California, or in Florida, or ??.

Sometimes I think I'm more "Objectivist" than others who actually identify, but it really doesn't matter to me. Reality is what I'm looking at when I look outward, individual self is what I practice when I look inward. So what I call myself is "objective" and what I practice is "objectivity". And it is practice, as in, a process; it is one thing I practice out of many.

I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday, and we were lamenting how some people-- perhaps most-- want a simple, sound-bite answer; and then they apply a literal interpretation of that sound-bite to everything even if reality doesn't come in sound-bites, and is more subtle and complex. My friend and I figured that people were lazy-- they didn't want to have to think about things, and they were insecure-- other people's opinions mattered more than their own possible disagreement... which is why the sound-bite is popular.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Jenna,

For the record, you are a much better Objectivist than most people who call themselves Objectivists. But, if you find the word constraining, I would not push you to use it. On the other hand, I do not think we should allow others to make us feel constrained by their interpretations of what Objectivism is. If we believe that our purpose is to achieve happiness in our individual life on this earth, that to do that we must identify reality, that our means of doing that is reason, that we must create ideas and control our environment to support human life, and free enterprise with limited government is the best way to allow everyone the right to these activities, then one is an Objectivist. Many would quibble that some other requirement exists, but it makes a lot more sense to me to be happy with this minimalist set of ideas. This means that you may disagree with Ayn Rand on numerous issues, but still be essentially an Objectivist.

Realistically, there simply is no way that invidualistic, thinking human beings are ever going to be able to reach a broad consensus on any philosophy that gets more detailed than this. There will be many schools of thought within this envelope of ideas. There will be many a sharp argument, but the world will be much better off for such a consensus than it is now or ever has been. Of course, many people will still imagine that a much better world might exist, if only everyone else agreed with them!

On the other hand, worshipping Ayn Rand while being unable to make rational arguments in support of one's positions does not make one an Objectivist. Wrapping one's arguments in Objectivist phases and sprinkling in liberal doses of Rand quotes, does not make one an Objectivist. I am sure that if John Galt were to walk among us, many of these people would be completely adamant that he was not an Objectivist. Afterall, Ayn Rand was just the novelist fisherwoman in Galt's Gulch! (Joke, Jenna, Joke)

Should you wind up at the University of Rochester or simply ever come to the Washington, DC or Baltimore area, it would be a pleasure to meet you. Oh, and I love to show off my laboratory, so you are welcome to visit it if you ever come out this way! My daughters often groan when I give such an invitation! Well, I think it is interesting.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Jenna,

Well I just got a bit carried away with fun and forgot to comment on the soundbite issue. You are right that laziness and insecurity play a big role, but it is also true that there are many people of average and less than average intelligence. You have to remember that you have something like a 50 point IQ advantage over the average person. Some of them do try hard and yet they do not develop highly sophisticated ideas on their own and they cannot follow the arguments that other very intelligent people might make in their writings.

Now, mind you, I do respect people of average intelligence in many ways. Most of them do productive work, most are nice and benevolent beings, and many of them know far more about some subject or subjects than I do. Very intelligent people can learn a lot by finding out what a person of average intelligence knows a lot about and taking the time to get them to tell you about it.

But, the total breadth of their knowledge is much more limited than yours. Many subjects you find fascinating, they were never able to become interested in. There is often a critical mass of knowledge one must have about a subject before one simply knows enough to integrate the facts in that subject and before one can have a meaningfully creative idea about that subject. People of average intelligence will have fewer subjects on which they reach this critical mass of knowledge even when they try hard. Of course, when the rate of success in reaching that critical mass is slower, it becomes harder to motivate oneself to make the effort. You could call this laziness, but that is unfair in a way. You and I are spurred on and on in our efforts by the frequent reward of our Ah Ha! moments. Imagine being without many of those moments.

We need to bear in mind that the person of average intelligence really does have to try harder and has few rewards for their effort if they are to understand many of the issues we understand. But having said this, there is much room for improvement of the ideas that these people hold today. We can make it easier for them by finding more and more ways to illustrate the advantages of our ideas in improving the lives of everyday people. We can lead by example. We can develop spheres of activity in which Objectivist principles are put to work and then point to their success. This may be one business at time, one academic lab at a time, one discussion group at a time, or one area of human activity in which the government footprint is kept small. Then someone must point at these efforts and their success.

When I grew up, histories of heroes and fiction about heroes was common. Now, such books are much more rare. We need to feed our children many more books about heroes. Roger Donway was pointing at businessmen's and inventor's success in his articles a lot for this reason. Ed Hudgins likes to find many everyday rational actions that people engage in and applaud them. He also looks for heroes with new ideas and the will to carry them out. We need more efforts like these to help the many people of more average intelligence to grasp and embrace Objectivist ideas.