Objectivists and Individualism

[Michelle]

If this post angers anyone here, be sure to check your premises.

It has to be said: Objectivism can be, and should be, a liberating philosophy of life. I have always loved ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD for their ability to make people question the most basic social values and many times choose to stop living with the guilt society likes to put on their shoulders for their virtue and ability to attain what they want in life (I love THE FOUNTAINHEAD as literature as well, but ATLAS SHRUGGED is great storytelling crushed by Rand's ideology). But for people who are purportedly individualists, there sure are a lot of them who are real brownnoses and don't seem to have an original thought in their brains. Particularly people associated with the ARI. They quote Rand's words like they're holy scripture, and any rational criticism of what Rand says is treated like treason. Independent thought that disagrees with Rand is demonized beyond belief. They treat Rand more like a God than anything. How can these people call themselves individualists when their every thought is borrowed second-hand from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff?

Edited May 26, 2009 by Michelle R

[Chris Grieb]

Michelle; Good post!

[kiaer.ts]

If this post angers anyone here, be sure to check your premises.

It has to be said: Objectivism can be, and should be, a liberating philosophy of life. I have always loved ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD for their ability to make people question the most basic social values and many times choose to stop living with the guilt society likes to put on their shoulders for their virtue and ability to attain what they want in life (I love THE FOUNTAINHEAD as literature as well, but ATLAS SHRUGGED is great storytelling crushed by Rand's ideology). But for people who are purportedly individualists, there sure are a lot of them who are real brownnoses and don't seem to have an original thought in their brains. Particularly people associated with the ARI. They quote Rand's words like they're holy scripture, and any rational criticism of what Rand says is treated like treason. Independent thought that disagrees with Rand is demonized beyond belief. They treat Rand more like a God than anything. How can these people call themselves individualists when their every thought is borrowed second-hand from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff?

So, Michelle, how do you really feel about the ARI?

I don't much participate in such threads, but there will be plenty here expressing an anti-ARI point of view. I find it better to criticize specific people's actions and writings when theyt come up, rather than to attack the institution, which seems to have some reasonable adherents and to do some beneficial work.

You might enjoy my essay here and the thread that follows: The Sin against Objectivism (Peikoff as Pontifex)

[Michelle]

If this post angers anyone here, be sure to check your premises.

It has to be said: Objectivism can be, and should be, a liberating philosophy of life. I have always loved ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD for their ability to make people question the most basic social values and many times choose to stop living with the guilt society likes to put on their shoulders for their virtue and ability to attain what they want in life (I love THE FOUNTAINHEAD as literature as well, but ATLAS SHRUGGED is great storytelling crushed by Rand's ideology). But for people who are purportedly individualists, there sure are a lot of them who are real brownnoses and don't seem to have an original thought in their brains. Particularly people associated with the ARI. They quote Rand's words like they're holy scripture, and any rational criticism of what Rand says is treated like treason. Independent thought that disagrees with Rand is demonized beyond belief. They treat Rand more like a God than anything. How can these people call themselves individualists when their every thought is borrowed second-hand from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff?

So, Michelle, how do you really feel about the ARI?

I don't much participate in such threads, but there will be plenty here expressing an anti-ARI point of view. I find it better to criticize specific people's actions and writings when theyt come up, rather than to attack the institution, which seems to have some reasonable adherents and to do some beneficial work.

You might enjoy my essay here and the thread that follows: The Sin against Objectivism (Peikoff as Pontifex)

I don't really have any feelings about the ARI as an institution. It isn't worth thinking about in too much depth. I just can't comprehend some of the people who treat Objectivism like a cult, is all, and by and large these types of people seem to be associated with the ARI.

I'd criticize specific figures, but they, too, aren't worth paying so much attention to that I go out of my way to learn anything about them.

This thread was merely an admission of weakness. The weakness I exhibit when I still find myself shocked.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle,

It doesn't matter what we agree or disagree on.

Please don't ever change.

What you have is precious—not so much the accusation/denunciation part as the independent and serious thinking part.

It is an inspiration to see.

Michael

[Michelle]

Michelle,

It doesn't matter what we agree or disagree on.

Please don't ever change.

What you have is precious—not so much the accusation/denunciation part as the independent and serious thinking part.

It is an inspiration to see.

Michael

This gives me an opportunity to try and articulate something that I have never been able to articulate.

I would say that calling it 'precious' is an excellent choice of words, only, I have never felt that it was precious. I think that it is because one must have some degree of distance between "I" and a thing to call a thing precious. "This is precious to me" presupposes that the thing which is precious is not synonymous with the self. "My individuality is precious to me." Same thing: some distance there. I cannot even say that it is an aspect of my personality. In a sense it is. But I am also synonymous with that. I could say "I am precious," but, again, that tiny wedge of distance. So all I can say about this is that "I am."

"I am."

This cannot change, because it is I, and my essential self cannot be altered.

So, no, I won't change, because I can't change. One day, I will be annihilated, and it will be as when I was before I was born. That is, I will not Be. One cannot convey non-Being in language. Even saying "I will not Be," presupposes the I which will not Be. But I will never be a creature divided in essence. I am, now. I am not, after death. But no in-between.

I cannot feel joy or sorrow or pride in this, because it is too primal to be touched by anything - by judgments, feelings, beliefs, anything.

I have only just recently turned twenty-one. I would like to say this is all presumption, and that I might change, who knows, anything is possible. But I don't lie to myself, so lies to anyone else come with only the greatest of effort, and when they do come out, they're not very good.

I cannot convey what I mean without sounding like some kind of Zen mystic who sits in a temple staring at a wall all day long. But that is the best I can do within the context of the English language. And considering how individualistic a language English is, probably any language.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Michelle R

[Brant Gaede]

I just turned 65 Michelle. In 44 years you will be my age now--2053. You could easily live another 30 years or more longer. What are you going to do for the next 60-70 years? Let me tell you: the more you do now the more you'll be happier about later. Never mind not the not being bs, be.

--Brant

[Michelle]

I just turned 65 Michelle. In 44 years you will be my age now--2053. You could easily live another 30 years or more longer. What are you going to do for the next 60-70 years? Let me tell you: the more you do now the more you'll be happier about later. Never mind not the not being bs, be.

--Brant

I don't mind it. It is just an interesting thing to think about, because your mind never latches onto anything. A living thing cannot comprehend its own nonexistence.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle,

I used to think very much like you do on my invincibility (for lack of a better word).

Then life happened and I reacted poorly.

I discovered that when you start to fall, often you fall much farther than you ever imagined possible—because of the nature of gravity, not because of any failure on your part. You suddenly see yourself doing things you thought simply impossible before. Things that are just not you. This does not mean that the start of the fall was not your failure, but that once a fall starts, it develops a nature of its own in addition to your initial failure and you get carried along.

There is some truth to the saying that the bigger you are, the harder you fall.

Now, since I am a real hardhead, I fell twice in the same manner. I was once addicted to alcohol. After I got over that, I fell off into crack cocaine. About 5 years each stint.

Maybe I needed two falls to widen my view. I used to be really blind about some things. I think the best thing I ever learned from this is on a sense-of-life level: I now know all the way down to my toes that I am not greater than reality.

It may sound silly, but I needed to learn that.

I used to have what I call a cognitive-normative inversion, where evaluation came before fact in my mind. (This is a huge problem with many Objectivists to this day.) In order to survive my falls, I had to learn the proper order on a premise level. In other words, identify, then evaluate.

It works, too.

This led to me checking every single principle I had ever adopted.

I was so delighted with the result that now I periodically check my principles on principle. Rand's phrase, "check your premises," is a great procedure to use periodically on all premises, even (and especially) hers.

If certainty in thinking is a value that led you to Objectivism (I know it was to me), this procedure provides much more certainty than the evaluate before identify temptation, often called euphemisms like "thinking in principles," or "Romanticism." There are some other colorful and cool-sounding names in the jargon.

Don't get me wrong. Thinking in principles when you should, or having a Romantic sense-of-life when you truly understand where it applies and where it doesn't, are perfect forms of mental activity that come with enormous benefits. With improper use, though, they become crutches and lead to all kinds of errors and heartaches and, especially, underachievement.

Here is one example (and there are many I could mention). Rand was an adamant proponent of love at first sight. When it works, the Romantic sense of life aligns with reality and it is wonderful. But love at first sight is basically a crapshoot. A person doggedly holding onto a horrible relationship because the he or she felt their sense of life could not have been wrong ("could have betrayed them" or something like that is how it is usually expressed) will get hurt. Really badly.

It's heaven being in love with the right person. It's hell being in love with an illusion. And it's not as easy as people make out to stop when you find out you are wrong.

There is a well-known fact about the Objectivist world: there are many failed relationships within it. I believe the cognitive-normative inversion is one of the main reasons.

I had to learn how to do it right—how to keep to the facts while keeping the passion going. I learned it the hard way, but I learned.

Now I have true certainty whereas before I had the allure of certainty and kept telling myself I had it. For example, I can say with total certainty, if I had to do it all over again, I would have done it differently. Coming out of that mess was no picnic.

But I don't know how I could have done it differently. Like I said, I was real hardheaded.

Still am...

Michael

[Michelle]

Michelle,

I used to think very much like you do on my invincibility (for lack of a better word).

Then life happened and I reacted poorly.

I discovered that when you start to fall, often you fall much farther than you ever imagined possible—because of the nature of gravity, not because of any failure on your part. You suddenly see yourself doing things you thought simply impossible before. Things that are just not you. This does not mean that the start of the fall was not your failure, but that once a fall starts, it develops a nature of its own in addition to your initial failure and you get carried along.

There is some truth to the saying that the bigger you are, the harder you fall.

Now, since I am a real hardhead, I fell twice in the same manner. I was once addicted to alcohol. After I got over that, I fell off into crack cocaine. About 5 years each stint.

Maybe I needed two falls to widen my view. I used to be really blind about some things. I think the best thing I ever learned from this is on a sense-of-life level: I now know all the way down to my toes that I am not greater than reality.

It may sound silly, but I needed to learn that.

I used to have what I call a cognitive-normative inversion, where evaluation came before fact in my mind. (This is a huge problem with many Objectivists to this day.) In order to survive my falls, I had to learn the proper order on a premise level. In other words, identify, then evaluate.

It works, too.

This led to me checking every single principle I had ever adopted.

I was so delighted with the result that now I periodically check my principles on principle. Rand's phrase, "check your premises," is a great procedure to use periodically on all premises, even (and especially) hers.

If certainty in thinking is a value that led you to Objectivism (I know it was to me), this procedure provides much more certainty than the evaluate before identify temptation, often called euphemisms like "thinking in principles," or "Romanticism." There are some other colorful and cool-sounding names in the jargon.

Don't get me wrong. Thinking in principles when you should, or having a Romantic sense-of-life when you truly understand where it applies and where it doesn't, are perfect forms of mental activity that come with enormous benefits. With improper use, though, they become crutches and lead to all kinds of errors and heartaches and, especially, underachievement.

Here is one example (and there are many I could mention). Rand was an adamant proponent of love at first sight. When it works, the Romantic sense of life aligns with reality and it is wonderful. But love at first sight is basically a crapshoot. A person doggedly holding onto a horrible relationship because the he or she felt their sense of life could not have been wrong ("could have betrayed them" or something like that is how it is usually expressed) will get hurt. Really badly.

It's heaven being in love with the right person. It's hell being in love with an illusion. And it's not as easy as people make out to stop when you find out you are wrong.

There is a well-known fact about the Objectivist world: there are many failed relationships within it. I believe the cognitive-normative inversion is one of the main reasons.

I had to learn how to do it right—how to keep to the facts while keeping the passion going. I learned it the hard way, but I learned.

Now I have true certainty whereas before I had the allure of certainty and kept telling myself I had it. For example, I can say with total certainty, if I had to do it all over again, I would have done it differently. Coming out of that mess was no picnic.

But I don't know how I could have done it differently. Like I said, I was real hardheaded.

Still am...

Michael

Good, sparked a discussion!

Invincibility? How do you mean? I'm a tough girl but I'm certainly not superwoman

I like your analysis of cognitive-normative inversion. It makes a lot of sense. In fact, thinking about it, it quite helps me to understand the behavior of many people I've known.

Heh, well, a belief in love at first sight is rubbish any way you look at it. How can you love somebody you don't know? Ayn Rand's characters may be psychic, and able to know everything about oneanother from just looking at eachother briefly, but this is not how humans relate to oneanother. I am sure it is hard for people to acknowledge that they were wrong about it, because love at first sight isn't falling love with a person. When you think about it, it is falling in love with an idea. I think many people cannot differentiate between the two: loving another, and loving the idea of love.

I wouldn't know how love feels, as I've never felt love before, in a romantic sense.

You've been through quite a slice of Hell, haven't you? And yet you're back on your feet after all that.

I'm not the inspirational one, friend. You are.

And, before it crosses your mind, that isn't modesty. That is merely the truth as I perceive it. I have no tolerance for modesty or arrogance. Both are mere airs people put on for others.

You know what I've never been able to understand? Identifying with any sort of group. Even were I to agree with Rand on everything, I could never call myself an Objectivist. I am not anything other than me. Never have been and never will be.

Of course, this might explain the weird reaction to groups I have. I can't talk to groups of people. The moment a third person appears, intimacy vanishes, and people start changing how they appear to accommodate the additional person. Of course, considering this, was the face they were showing to me in intimacy their real face?

Edited May 27, 2009 by Michelle R

[kiaer.ts]

Heh, well, a belief in love at first sight is rubbish any way you look at it. How can you love somebody you don't know? Ayn Rand's characters may be psychic, and able to know everything about oneanother from just looking at eachother briefly, but this is not how humans relate to oneanother. I am sure it is hard for people to acknowledge that they were wrong about it, because love at first sight isn't falling love with a person. When you think about it, it is falling in love with an idea. I think many people cannot differentiate between the two: loving another, and loving the idea of love.

I wouldn't know how love feels, as I've never felt love before, in a romantic sense.

Love at first sight does exist. It is a combination of sight, smell and first impression. (Of course you may fall in love with someone at first sight and quickly fall out if they don't live up to the first impression. I have done that a couple times.) But I have had three such loves, the first ending with physical separation but continued friendship and the second only when my love was murdered. I still remember the exact moment I set eyes on my third, still my love today.

I didn't have my first love until I was 20. I wouldn't be so certain that you won't. My advicce, just don't push it, and don't pooh-pooh it either when it comes.

[Michelle]

Heh, well, a belief in love at first sight is rubbish any way you look at it. How can you love somebody you don't know? Ayn Rand's characters may be psychic, and able to know everything about oneanother from just looking at eachother briefly, but this is not how humans relate to oneanother. I am sure it is hard for people to acknowledge that they were wrong about it, because love at first sight isn't falling love with a person. When you think about it, it is falling in love with an idea. I think many people cannot differentiate between the two: loving another, and loving the idea of love.

I wouldn't know how love feels, as I've never felt love before, in a romantic sense.

Love at first sight does exist. It is a combination of sight, smell and first impression. (Of course you may fall in love with someone at first sight and quickly fall out if they don't live up to the first impression. I have done that a couple times.) But I have had three such loves, the first ending with physical separation but continued friendship and the second only when my love was murdered. I still remember the exact moment I set eyes on my third, still my love today.

I didn't have my first love until I was 20. I wouldn't be so certain that you won't. My advicce, just don't push it, and don't pooh-pooh it either when it comes.

That sounds like initial infatuation turning into love. Is a love that can be created and fall apart in the space of a day really love?

Then again, I've not experienced it, so I wouldn't know. My idea is based only on conjecture, but yours on actual experience.

(As to your second love: I'm sorry. I've had a friend who was murdered. The whole aftermath of the murder felt very unreal, except for the unexpected bursts of emotion I had. I don't cry too often, but when I start, I'll be damned if I can stop. I can't imagine how much worse it is to lose a love.)

Oh, I'm sure it'll come some time. I'm just not actively seeking it out. I have my hands full enough dealing with my own life at the moment, anyhow.

[kiaer.ts]

Heh, well, a belief in love at first sight is rubbish any way you look at it. How can you love somebody you don't know? Ayn Rand's characters may be psychic, and able to know everything about oneanother from just looking at eachother briefly, but this is not how humans relate to oneanother. I am sure it is hard for people to acknowledge that they were wrong about it, because love at first sight isn't falling love with a person. When you think about it, it is falling in love with an idea. I think many people cannot differentiate between the two: loving another, and loving the idea of love.

I wouldn't know how love feels, as I've never felt love before, in a romantic sense.

Love at first sight does exist. It is a combination of sight, smell and first impression. (Of course you may fall in love with someone at first sight and quickly fall out if they don't live up to the first impression. I have done that a couple times.) But I have had three such loves, the first ending with physical separation but continued friendship and the second only when my love was murdered. I still remember the exact moment I set eyes on my third, still my love today.

I didn't have my first love until I was 20. I wouldn't be so certain that you won't. My advicce, just don't push it, and don't pooh-pooh it either when it comes.

That sounds like initial infatuation turning into love. Is a love that can be created and fall apart in the space of a day really love?

Then again, I've not experienced it, so I wouldn't know. My idea is based only on conjecture, but yours on actual experience.

(As to your second love: I'm sorry. I've had a friend who was murdered. The whole aftermath of the murder felt very unreal, except for the unexpected bursts of emotion I had. I don't cry too often, but when I start, I'll be damned if I can stop. I can't imagine how much worse it is to lose a love.)

Oh, I'm sure it'll come some time. I'm just not actively seeking it out. I have my hands full enough dealing with my own life at the moment, anyhow.

Well, it is if it lasts 15 years.

Oh, and as for the crying, I have found it is a good thing to embrace the mourning. (I deeon't mean wallow in it.) When you cry don't fight it or be embarrassed, but realize that it is a tributr to the value of the loved one. If we didn't love, didn't value, we wouldn't mourn. Tears of grief are a good thing.

[Michelle]

Heh, well, a belief in love at first sight is rubbish any way you look at it. How can you love somebody you don't know? Ayn Rand's characters may be psychic, and able to know everything about oneanother from just looking at eachother briefly, but this is not how humans relate to oneanother. I am sure it is hard for people to acknowledge that they were wrong about it, because love at first sight isn't falling love with a person. When you think about it, it is falling in love with an idea. I think many people cannot differentiate between the two: loving another, and loving the idea of love.

I wouldn't know how love feels, as I've never felt love before, in a romantic sense.

Love at first sight does exist. It is a combination of sight, smell and first impression. (Of course you may fall in love with someone at first sight and quickly fall out if they don't live up to the first impression. I have done that a couple times.) But I have had three such loves, the first ending with physical separation but continued friendship and the second only when my love was murdered. I still remember the exact moment I set eyes on my third, still my love today.

I didn't have my first love until I was 20. I wouldn't be so certain that you won't. My advicce, just don't push it, and don't pooh-pooh it either when it comes.

That sounds like initial infatuation turning into love. Is a love that can be created and fall apart in the space of a day really love?

Then again, I've not experienced it, so I wouldn't know. My idea is based only on conjecture, but yours on actual experience.

(As to your second love: I'm sorry. I've had a friend who was murdered. The whole aftermath of the murder felt very unreal, except for the unexpected bursts of emotion I had. I don't cry too often, but when I start, I'll be damned if I can stop. I can't imagine how much worse it is to lose a love.)

Oh, I'm sure it'll come some time. I'm just not actively seeking it out. I have my hands full enough dealing with my own life at the moment, anyhow.

Well, it is if it lasts 15 years.

Oh, and as for the crying, I have found it is a good thing to embrace the mourning. (I deeon't mean wallow in it.) When you cry don't fight it or be embarrassed, but realize that it is a tributr to the value of the loved one. If we didn't love, didn't value, we wouldn't mourn. Tears of grief are a good thing.

15 years, huh? Good for you! I enjoy seeing nice and happy couples together.

I think I'm too selfish to maintain a healthy relationship, however. I might have to settle for being a mistress or something.

Thanks. I do embrace them when they come at the right time, but when I'm trying to talk and I'm sobbing hysterically it grates on me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You know what I've never been able to understand? Identifying with any sort of group. Even were I to agree with Rand on everything, I could never call myself an Objectivist. I am not anything other than me. Never have been and never will be.

Michelle,

I know you must sense a difference between what I mean when I say I am an Objectivist and what someone from a more orthodox bent means, so I want to make it clear. You actually put your finger on it with the word "group."

One approach (the one I do not do) is to identify with a group of people who are making an "Objectivist movement" to save the world from an orgy of this or that. Another approach (which is the one I do) is simply to use the label as a point of reference in terms of a body of thought.

It's like calling a university professor a Kantian or an Aristotelian. This designation does not mean that the Kantian professor is trying to band together with others to save the world in the name of Kant. All it means is that the professor studied Kant's works, focuses substantial intellectual effort on his thought, and agrees with a portion of it. Calling such a person a Kantian merely helps others properly identify when they are presented in public with a vast array of different professors.

By calling this site "Objectivist Living," I thus communicate to people interested in, say, the Jehovah's Witness denomination of Christianity or in the poetry of Yeats or whatever that this is probably not the venue where they will find the information and discussions they seek. I also communicate to people interested in Rand and even libertarianism that this is a place where they can likely get information and discussions they seek.

The orthodox doesn't like this approach or approve of it, but that doesn't bother me. They are into group thinking and making a movement to save the world. (Guess who they want to be in charge if they succeed? )

I am into independent thinking, even if the intellectual starting point is well-defined like "Objectivism."

Right from the start of OL, this difference was clear in my mind. Same word. Different meanings. Different goals.

I thought about using a different word because of the conflict I imagined it would generate with people I don't like very much. But then some overly-zealous souls tried to bully me into giving up the designation "Objectivist" and it didn't work.

Michael

[thomtg]

You know what I've never been able to understand? Identifying with any sort of group. Even were I to agree with Rand on everything, I could never call myself an Objectivist. I am not anything other than me. Never have been and never will be.

Michelle,

I know you must sense a difference between what I mean when I say I am an Objectivist and what someone from a more orthodox bent means, so I want to make it clear. You actually put your finger on it with the word "group."

One approach (the one I do not do) is to identify with a group of people who are making an "Objectivist movement" to save the world from an orgy of this or that. Another approach (which is the one I do) is simply to use the label as a point of reference in terms of a body of thought.

It's like calling a university professor a Kantian or an Aristotelian. This designation does not mean that the Kantian professor is trying to band together with others to save the world in the name of Kant. All it means is that the professor studied Kant's works, focuses substantial intellectual effort on his thought, and agrees with a portion of it. Calling such a person a Kantian merely helps others properly identify when they are presented in public with a vast array of different professors.

[...]

Michelle,

I am in agreement with MSK on this. (See this thread for my condition for being an Objectivist.) When I identify a body of thought, I credit the person who originated it. When Ayn Rand called herself an Aristotelian, she identified and credited Aristotle for having originated a body of thought for establishing the foundation for all true thoughts and for identifying reason, as opposed to mysticism or skepticism, as the means for knowledge. (ARA 148d) So for me, crediting a body of thought to its originator is a matter of civility. In Rand's case, she gave hers a name, "Objectivism," in order to depersonalize it for a very practical reason. She was both a novelist and a philosopher. While I am both a Randian (or a Rand fan)--because I enjoy her novels, and an Objectivist--because I understand her philosophy; others need not be.

[Selene]

Folks:

Nice thread. I understand what you mean by "Objectivist", I use the small "o" to express the same purpose and assumptions.

My roommate while I was doing my teaching would say about me that I fell in "lust" at first sight which, in retrospect, was accurate in a number of cases.

As Ted pointed our there is a legitimate experience of love at first sight. I experienced it when a woman walked into my classroom ten minutes late after being absent for the first class.

Eighteen years later it ended.

On that precise issue that Ted mentioned, psychologist Mark Kristal from the University of Buffalo explains the chemistry in romantic relationships.

“There are several types of chemistry required in romantic relationships,” he says. “It seems like a variety of different neurochemical processes and external stimuli have to click in the right complex and right sequence for someone to fall in love.” The chemistry in romance requires certain elements of love.

1. Smell. We fall in love partly because of smell. The scent of a bouquet of red roses, for instance, is a cultural preference that boosts the chemistry in romantic relationships. Dr Kristal says, “Smell forms part of the framework that conforms to cultural attractiveness standards. For example, smelling like a strawberry instead of mildew [makes you attractive].” Smelling delicious could be part of why we fall in love.

2. Love pheromones. Invisible signals are part of what makes people fall in love. “Pheromones are unlearned, and perhaps unsmellable, signals that enter the brain through the olfactory system. They can function in sex, alarm, territoriality, aggression, and fear,” says Dr Kristal. He believes that we choose specific mates not solely due to pheromones, but for other reasons. Other sensory cues are better explanations for why we fall in love, such as touch, smell, and hearing.

3. The brain. We fall in love partly because of hormones. Oxytocin and vasopressin are present when people fall in love and stay together for a long time. Dopamine is also part of the chemistry in romantic relationships. So, when you’re wondering “Why doesn’t he love me?” you may have to look to brain chemistry as the answer. It’s not necessarily you, it’s just that your brain chemicals didn’t mesh. Lack of hormones could explain why we fall in love.

Adam

[Christopher]

This led to me checking every single principle I had ever adopted.

I had a hard fall many years ago as well at a time when I depended on love to satiate and validate my existence. The external dependency led me into oblivion when the relationship ended. Afterwards, I didn't know what to do, what to believe, what to live for. I read a book on codependency, which suggested raising self-esteem. So I walked into the self-help section of the book store, picked up a book entitled The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem, and the rest is history.

Perhaps the most important lessons were: reality exists as it is and despite whatever I think. From this knowledge, I studied and recreated myself, checking every belief, every value, every principle I had ever adopted, and logically determining what is right. Worked for several years, then I realized I still had to work on integration after I had redefined myself. I'm still in the process of integration to this day.

I attune with the comment that sometimes it's more difficult to find intimacy when a third person enters the scene. 2 people is almost the precondition for intimacy. When a third person enters, sometimes my conversational partner changes, becomes something else that I don't think of as quite real and honest and true to their spirit. I feel like I can suddenly be talking to an illusion or image. But... with all my work on integration, I find I was partly right, partly wrong. There is definitely a positive thing called "group intimacy," which is nothing more than a communal affiliative feeling. It is not the individualistic intimacy that I feel is so wonderful between 2 people, but it is its own feeling that is unique, distinctly human, and not an illusion as I once thought. Being whole is hard work, and the self's parts are not the same, so it's hard to know what is a real part and what's a fake part (or even where to begin defining real and fake). To my autonomous self, communal intimacy and empathy can feel very threatening... but it's real, it's natural, and it's a part of my spirit. Because my autonomous self finds my communal self threatening, my communal self also feels threatened by my autonomous self. I don't think of these self-images as cognitively driven, I believe they are founded in separate neuromechanics. But that is simply another way of say... both parts are real, and both parts are required for me to be whole.

Christopher

[Michelle]

Of course. It's a kind of short-hand. The problem is that there are two aspects to this

one of identity: Am I an Objectivist or an individual who has adopted Objectivism?

and

one of knowledge: Is objectivism an open-or-closed system - method or revealed truth?

Edited May 27, 2009 by Michelle R

[studiodekadent]

If this post angers anyone here, be sure to check your premises.

It has to be said: Objectivism can be, and should be, a liberating philosophy of life. I have always loved ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD for their ability to make people question the most basic social values and many times choose to stop living with the guilt society likes to put on their shoulders for their virtue and ability to attain what they want in life (I love THE FOUNTAINHEAD as literature as well, but ATLAS SHRUGGED is great storytelling crushed by Rand's ideology). But for people who are purportedly individualists, there sure are a lot of them who are real brownnoses and don't seem to have an original thought in their brains. Particularly people associated with the ARI. They quote Rand's words like they're holy scripture, and any rational criticism of what Rand says is treated like treason. Independent thought that disagrees with Rand is demonized beyond belief. They treat Rand more like a God than anything. How can these people call themselves individualists when their every thought is borrowed second-hand from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff?

I agree with you entirely, although I don't think every member of ARI is inevitably like this (not saying you do either).

I've found many so-called "Objectivists" to be very hostile to my own tastes. I am gothic and often I find some "Objectivists" will instantly knee-jerk and accuse me of having a malevolent sense of life. Additionally, I find many "Objectivists" to be extraordinarily touchy about any perceived criticism of Objectivism. For instance, a while ago a computer game called "BioShock" was released, and many Randroids went into panic-mode, claiming it was now 'open-season on Objectivism.' The irony of this is that BioShock (a brilliant game) was designed by an Objectivist-sympathetic libertarian who clearly made the game demonstrate that 1) Objectivism did not cause the collapse of the game's underwater utopia (if anything, it was hypocrisy and power-lust that caused the collapse of the utopia), 2) One of the game's villains was clearly a Randian villain, to the point where he uses charity to recruit the poor into his army and use them as pawns (for the record, I think this specific villain is the best Randian villain since Ellsworth Toohey) and 3) The fall of the utopia is clearly a tragedy, implying the utopia's founding ideals were beautiful and noble. The game's creator chose Objectivist ideals because he considers them good. And as someone that has personally corresponded with the game's creator, as well as finished the game numerous times (unlike many of the Randroids that simply condemned the game without playing this), I can provide documentation of every point above.

But yes, I agree many alleged "Objectivists" are in fact Randroids that didn't understand the chapter in Galt's speech about "independence."

[Michelle]

If this post angers anyone here, be sure to check your premises.

It has to be said: Objectivism can be, and should be, a liberating philosophy of life. I have always loved ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD for their ability to make people question the most basic social values and many times choose to stop living with the guilt society likes to put on their shoulders for their virtue and ability to attain what they want in life (I love THE FOUNTAINHEAD as literature as well, but ATLAS SHRUGGED is great storytelling crushed by Rand's ideology). But for people who are purportedly individualists, there sure are a lot of them who are real brownnoses and don't seem to have an original thought in their brains. Particularly people associated with the ARI. They quote Rand's words like they're holy scripture, and any rational criticism of what Rand says is treated like treason. Independent thought that disagrees with Rand is demonized beyond belief. They treat Rand more like a God than anything. How can these people call themselves individualists when their every thought is borrowed second-hand from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff?

I agree with you entirely, although I don't think every member of ARI is inevitably like this (not saying you do either).

I've found many so-called "Objectivists" to be very hostile to my own tastes. I am gothic and often I find some "Objectivists" will instantly knee-jerk and accuse me of having a malevolent sense of life. Additionally, I find many "Objectivists" to be extraordinarily touchy about any perceived criticism of Objectivism. For instance, a while ago a computer game called "BioShock" was released, and many Randroids went into panic-mode, claiming it was now 'open-season on Objectivism.' The irony of this is that BioShock (a brilliant game) was designed by an Objectivist-sympathetic libertarian who clearly made the game demonstrate that 1) Objectivism did not cause the collapse of the game's underwater utopia (if anything, it was hypocrisy and power-lust that caused the collapse of the utopia), 2) One of the game's villains was clearly a Randian villain, to the point where he uses charity to recruit the poor into his army and use them as pawns (for the record, I think this specific villain is the best Randian villain since Ellsworth Toohey) and 3) The fall of the utopia is clearly a tragedy, implying the utopia's founding ideals were beautiful and noble. The game's creator chose Objectivist ideals because he considers them good. And as someone that has personally corresponded with the game's creator, as well as finished the game numerous times (unlike many of the Randroids that simply condemned the game without playing this), I can provide documentation of every point above.

But yes, I agree many alleged "Objectivists" are in fact Randroids that didn't understand the chapter in Galt's speech about "independence."

It's always open-season on Objectivism, as well as any other belief system. A philosophy which cannot stand up to critical analysis and criticism has no right to exist.

Did Bioshock really stir the pot that much? I never really perceived it to be a criticism of Objectivism. It came off to me more as a criticism of Utopianism. More specifically, it explores what would have happened to a society like Galt's Gulch when the initial idealism wore off and people began to bicker and grope for power. I believe I've said before that if Galt's Gulch really did exist, it'd tear itself to pieces in the space of a few years. Observe how vicious the in-fighting can get in-between different Objectivist groups, and then think about how well these same groups would co-exist together in a small and compact community in the mountains (Galt's Gulch) or under the ocean (Rapture).

[studiodekadent]

It's always open-season on Objectivism, as well as any other belief system. A philosophy which cannot stand up to critical analysis and criticism has no right to exist.

I agree entirely. But after BioShock's publication, public denunciation of Randian ideas did increase in frequency and vehemence compared to what it is usually. So in that respect I can understand why the Randroids would feel more threatened than usual.

Did Bioshock really stir the pot that much? I never really perceived it to be a criticism of Objectivism. It came off to me more as a criticism of Utopianism.

The few weeks around its release date, there were many threads on Rationalist Randroid Central (aka Objectivism Online) denouncing the game and throwing a moral panic the likes of which hasn't been since the publication of Lady Chatterly's Lover. It was rather funny really. And many newspapers that published reviews did interpret the game as a giant 'take that!' to Objectivism. However, you are quite correct, the game itself is not a criticism of Objectivism. According to the game's creator, its really about how real people aren't good enough to consistently practice their ideals. I disagree with his position, but the game's creator (Ken Levine) is actually sympathetic to Objectivism, and understands the philosophy very well. He obviously admires its vision of humanity, even if he thinks most humans aren't good enough to live it.

I have publically corresponded with him about the issue and I'm happy to post it here if you would like some evidence.

The irony is BioShock has been some of the best publicity Objectivism has ever had. I'd rather have publicity from a sympathetic not-really-critic than from a loathesome hater of all we stand for (for instance, Alan Moore's character "Rorschach" in Watchmen). Some of my friends have actually began reading Atlas Shrugged because of BioShock.

[thomtg]

[...]

I have publically corresponded with him about the issue [in BioShock] and I'm happy to post it here if you would like some evidence.

The irony is BioShock has been some of the best publicity Objectivism has ever had. I'd rather have publicity from a sympathetic not-really-critic than from a loathesome hater of all we stand for (for instance, Alan Moore's character "Rorschach" in Watchmen). Some of my friends have actually began reading Atlas Shrugged because of BioShock.

Yes, please do post any. I am curious about the game.

[studiodekadent]

First, I need to state some context:

The reply was received on an internet message board named Through The Looking Glass (TTLG). I used to go there but I left because it became a haven of bitter PC-fundamentalist (i.e. "any game that isn't on the PC exclusively is dumbed down for console!" ) Given that I AM a PC gamer I find this attitude embarrassing, and to be honest I also found more than one very anti-Objectivist person on that board that was more than willing to use personal attacks. Thus, I don't go there any more.

Additionally, there is a lot of material in the correspondence relating to BioShock's spiritual prequel: System Shock 2. System Shock 2 is my favorite game of all time. The characters I mention are SHODAN (a malevolent, genocidal AI with a god complex) and The Many (a biological hive mind that are an organic version of The Borg from Star Trek). Ken levine also mentions a character from BioShock, Andrew Ryan. Ryan founded Rapture (the underwater utopia).

ONTO THE CORRESPONDENCE....

Mr Levine,

I would like to ask you about some of the deeper themes contained in the story for your studio's upcoming game Bioshock. Before I begin, allow me to state that I have been most impressed with your studio's previous work, indeed I am a very enthusiastic player of System Shock 2. However, I have been reading the information about Bioshock's storyline. The information I have was acquired from the IGN interview as well as the Bioshock Wikipedia page.

First, the influence of Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand, to which I generally subscribe) is quite apparrent (and applauded). However, Bioshock is not the only game of Irrational's to explore the theme of individualism versus collectivism. System Shock 2 did that as well (The Many representing collectivism). However, I must ask, I sincerely hope you are not presenting a strawman 'individualism'? Will you be treating individualism and Objectivism with more than just a scoff and dismissal? In many analyses of System Shock 2, it is claimed that SHODAN represents 'individualism', however I consider equating SHODAN with individualism to be a grave mistake. If The Many represent the sacrifice of self to the group (altruism), then SHODAN represents the sacrifice of the group to the self (predatory, Neitzschean 'selfishness'). Individualism, especially of the Randian variety, explicity opposes both alternatives. Allow me to quote Ayn Rand's introduction to "The Virtue of Selfishness,"

"In popular usage, the word 'selfishness' is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment"

"The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute... in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: a) that concern with one's own interests is evil, regardless of what these interests might be, and B) that the brutes activities are in fact to one's own interest."

In other words, the choice is not between The Many and SHODAN (i.e. the moral masochism of altruism or the moral sadism of the popular meaning of 'selfishness'). There is a third alternative, which is the self-supporting, independent person that neither sacrifices himself to others nor others to himself. Randian individualism supports this no-sacrifice proposition, on the grounds that the rational interests of people are in harmony. For example, its in no ones rational interests to have a massive civil war that kills almost everybody. Another example: being a lousy businessperson will destroy your reputation so over the long run, no one will trade with you. Therefore, being honest is in ones overall self-interest.

What I am hoping is that BioShock treats the theory of individualism with proper respect. It would be very disheartening if BioShock were to equate individualism with an endless desire to prove oneself superior to others (this being a form of conformist parasitism Rand referred to as Second-Handing), free-market capitalism with making profit as an end-in-itself, or advocate the fallacious notion that laissez-faire is a zero-sum game. As you are obviously aware, Objectivism is often assumed to be wrong, evil, or an engine of societal collapse and disintegration, regardless of the historical evidence in favor of many Objectivist-approved principles.

A glance of the plot summary on Wikipedia seems to indicate two possible angles: 1) The genetic arms race is a product of genuine individualism being changed into second-handing 'beat the other guy' (this being the more pro-individualist angle) or 2) the genetic arms race is an EXTENSION of genuine individualism (this being a strawman individualism as outlined above. If ones prime motive is to beat others, you arent being very individualist are you?).

My question to you is, which angle are you going to take?

Your answer is much appreciated,

Sincerely,

Andrew Russell

LEVINE'S REPLY

Andy, I saw your mail a while back and have not ignored it, just been trying to find the time to answer it. I've avoided getting too deep into Rand in interviews, because PC Gamer isn't exactly the best forum for an Objectivist discussion...

But here at TTLG, well that's a horse of a different color.

Let me say this first:

I'm no scholar of Rand. (or much for that matter).

I've read a bunch of her writing, and I find her to be a powerful and fearless thinker.

My own leanings trend libertarian, though for some reason (perhaps you can explain this to me), Rand had nothing but contempt for libertarians. Perhaps it's akin to the way I feel about people who like Genesis after Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett left the band.

If I had to choose between SHODAN and the Many, I'd take SHODAN any day. I think the most appealing part of Rand to me is the celebration of the self and her daring challenge to altruism. Talk about swimming upstream in a Judeo-Christian society.

But SHODAN (and perhaps Ryan, but I'm not gonna talk too much about BioShock story just yet) doesn't honor or respect greatness in others. And she needs others to recognize her glory. These seem to be two pretty large sins in Rand land. SHODAN also believes in violence in cases where she is not threatened with violence. Rand would hand this a thumbs down too.

Lastly, SHODAN views herself as a God. Not a God of her own work, of her own realm, but a God because others should grant her fealty. Not something you'd expect to hear from Roark.

You mention that: "she was, in the strictest sense of the word, an empiricist". It is where Rand is not an empiricist is where she starts to lose me. In the book of interviews with Rand (http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Answe...e=UTF8&s=books) , when any facts contradict her philosophy (the treatment by western expansionist of native americans, for example) she dismisses some pretty empirical facts as "leftist propaganda". It's when she abandons logic for slavish and unquestioning adherence to ideology is when I remember why Galt was a fictional character and Ayn Rand was flesh and blood.

But as I witness the rise of the state and in the last five years in my country, and the burgeoning of fundamentalism both here and abroad, I become more and more of an objectivist: invidual liberties, govt. staying out of business and religion, and non-interventionist.

Which, quite perversely, has become much more of the position of the left.

These changes have given me the impression that it's not any philosophy that's the danger. It's the extremes. The Stalins, the Bin Ladens, the neocons, the theocons, the Leninites, the Maoists. What have they ever really offered anyone of value? Is there a Galt among there number? Is there even an Andrew Ryan?

RESPONSE TO LEVINE'S REPLY

Mr Levine,

Sincerest thanks for your reply. Indeed, your reply gives me much more confidence that the material will be respected. I completely understand the fact you are extremely busy working on the new game and indeed Im delighted that you replied.

Quote:

My own leanings trend libertarian, though for some reason (perhaps you can explain this to me), Rand had nothing but contempt for libertarians.

Rand's own dislike of the libertarian movement was due to the fact she considered libertarians to be indifferent to philosophy. They want their liberty but they refuse to acknowlege the fact that you have to justify liberty. Rand also despised the anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard that were instrumental in the founding of modern libertarianism (or more correctly, the revival of Classical Liberalism (which Im sure you know was the original name of Libertarianism before the American Left hijacked it)). I think Rand was awfully judgmental in this instance, and the fact is that liberty can be justified by many different philosophies. Robert Nozick uses Kantianism (Kant being, according to Rand, the "most evil man in history"(!)), the Classical Liberals used Empiricism and Utilitarianism, some use Christianity, indeed libertarianism is a broad Church. Rand just was not fond of people that disagreed with her, even on the slightest details.

This is not a good attitude obviously, and The Objectivist Center goes a long way towards ending the stifling intellectual isolationism Rand and the orthodox Objectivists practice.

Quote:

If I had to choose between SHODAN and the Many, I'd take SHODAN any day. I think the most appealing part of Rand to me is the celebration of the self and her daring challenge to altruism. Talk about swimming upstream in a Judeo-Christian society.

I agree. Rand's ethics are without precedent in their explicit and total rejection of altruism and they are incredibly thrilling to read. I credit her philosophy with ressurrecting my self-esteem, but that is another story.

Quote:

But SHODAN (and perhaps Ryan, but I'm not gonna talk too much about BioShock story just yet) doesn't honor or respect greatness in others. And she needs others to recognize her glory. These seem to be two pretty large sins in Rand land. SHODAN also believes in violence in cases where she is not threatened with violence. Rand would hand this a thumbs down too.

Completely correct on all three counts Mr Levine. The first; a refusal to honor the good in others, is to lack the virtue of justice. The second; a need for the grovelling and subordination of others, is a form of psychological vampirism referred to as 'second-handing' (which is the opposite of the virtue of Independence). And the third is the classic initiation of force that all libertarians including Rand despise.

Quote:

Lastly, SHODAN views herself as a God. Not a God of her own work, of her own realm, but a God because others should grant her fealty. Not something you'd expect to hear from Roark.

Exactly. That would be second-hander psychological dependence on others; predatorial vampirism; something that Roark would never lower himself to.

Quote:

You mention that: "she was, in the strictest sense of the word, an empiricist". It is where Rand is not an empiricist is where she starts to lose me. In the book of interviews with Rand ( http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Answe...e=UTF8&s=books ) , when any facts contradict her philosophy (the treatment by western expansionist of native americans, for example) she dismisses some pretty empirical facts as "leftist propaganda". It's when she abandons logic for slavish and unquestioning adherence to ideology is when I remember why Galt was a fictional character and Ayn Rand was flesh and blood.

Ayn Rand was fallible, I do not deny that. Again, the open-system Objectivist scholarship is something that is much more rational and totally devoid of the dogmatism that Rand unfortunately fell in to.

Quote:

But as I witness the rise of the state and in the last five years in my country, and the burgeoning of fundamentalism both here and abroad, I become more and more of an objectivist: invidual liberties, govt. staying out of business and religion, and non-interventionist.

Which, quite perversely, has become much more of the position of the left.

These changes have given me the impression that it's not any philosophy that's the danger. It's the extremes. The Stalins, the Bin Ladens, the neocons, the theocons, the Leninites, the Maoists. What have they ever really offered anyone of value? Is there a Galt among there number? Is there even an Andrew Ryan?

All the ideologies you name are truly disgusting and are horrid dangers to the rights of humanity. Among their number, you will find SHODANS and Many's constantly; power-crazed vampires and collectivist brutes. The two go together very well. They are certainly extremes of sorts, in the sense that they are extremely consistent in holding to their ideas. However, it is not that they are consistent practicioners of their philosophy that is where their evil comes from, their evil stems from the fact that their philosophies are wrong.

If one is consistently correct (i.e. extremely correct) then that is not evil. Rand is not flawless, but certainly I find no other philosopher whose basic, fundamental ideas are as robust and consistent as hers.

If I were to do an Objectivist analysis of System Shock 2, I would explain the conflict of The Many versus SHODAN in terms of Rand's moral trichotomy: the standard false dichotomy of morality sees one having to choose to sacrifice yourself to others (The Many) versus having to sacrifice others to yourself (SHODAN). In System Shock 2, you reject both. Unfortunately, many people, especially those demanding more power to the state, cannot comprehend a third alternative, and declare SHODAN to embody 'individualism.' Hence, individualism is declared to be the sacrifice of others to self.

I am sure the fallacies of this are easily apparent to you. You may not be a Rand scholar but you certainly have an understanding of Rand that indicates you will not be strawmanning individualism. So as a result, I am most relieved and will be reporting the good news to The Objectivist Center. And of course I will be queing up on the release date to purchase the game.

Sincerest gratitude and best of luck with BioShock!

Edited June 11, 2009 by studiodekadent

[Michelle]

I agree entirely. But after BioShock's publication, public denunciation of Randian ideas did increase in frequency and vehemence compared to what it is usually. So in that respect I can understand why the Randroids would feel more threatened than usual.

The few weeks around its release date, there were many threads on Rationalist Randroid Central (aka Objectivism Online) denouncing the game and throwing a moral panic the likes of which hasn't been since the publication of Lady Chatterly's Lover. It was rather funny really. And many newspapers that published reviews did interpret the game as a giant 'take that!' to Objectivism. However, you are quite correct, the game itself is not a criticism of Objectivism. According to the game's creator, its really about how real people aren't good enough to consistently practice their ideals. I disagree with his position, but the game's creator (Ken Levine) is actually sympathetic to Objectivism, and understands the philosophy very well. He obviously admires its vision of humanity, even if he thinks most humans aren't good enough to live it.

I have publically corresponded with him about the issue and I'm happy to post it here if you would like some evidence.

Not surprised. Some Rand critics will latch onto anything they perceive to be anti-Objectivist in order to take shots at Rand.

You can always tell a Randroid from an Objectivist. Just watch how they react to perceived criticism. The Randroids are intellectual parasites who hang onto Rand and Peikoff's every last word and, unable to think rationally or independently, are threatened by criticism on a primal level. So the Objectivist gurus have to issue loud and virulent condemnations in order to ensure the emotional well-being of their flock.

I believe you, but it'd be interesting to read if you're willing to post it.