Musings about Objectivism

[seeker]

Having only stumbled across Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" about a year ago - and now having just finished reading "The Fountainhead" and "The Virtue of Selfishness", I am not sure that I even know enough about Objectivism to ask questions. I certainly do not know nor understand enough to enter into a debate or discussion in depth at this point. I also have read with great interest many of the postings of persons here far more exprienced with not only the philosophy, but also living as objectivists. Ayn Rand's books seem to have depicted with great reality what our nation our people and society has become and where it is headed. The parasite versus the producer, the contributer versus the taker, the Robinhood mentality of our government and economic system and the denegration of the indiviual for the "good of society" - all things being justified in the name of the "common good" - individual initiative and resourcefulness being discourged at all levels of society. capitalisim is evil, democracy decried, feelings are more important than thoughts and ideas -- all this and more are addressed and their results illustrated by Ayn Rand - all of this and more seems more true today than it was when Ayn Rand wrote her novels. Much of what I do see and understand of Objectivism seems to me to be the only philosophy that offers solutions to these fatal flaws - I am coming to believe that one must be blind not to see what our world has become and where it is headed, yet the overwhelming majority of people are either blind, ignorant, or have chosen to ignore it.

Still, there are facets of Objectivism that seem puzzling to me. One of them is that it seems that the philosphy of Objectivism expects that man is to behave in such a reational manner as to totally deny that man is also an emotional being. In seems the objectivists ideal role model would me Mr. Spock from the old Star Trek TV series -- always saying "it isn't logical" and denying or with holding all emotions in every situation. But to me emotions are predominantly a human characateristic -- and even necessary to make rational decisions, especially where either all the facts are either not knowable or where there isn't sufficient time to consider all or even most of the facts. Also in the area of human emotions, love seems to be treated either superficially, or at best given gruging acknowledgement. I must confess, I am romantic , so the term love not only means that deep and abiding affection of a man towards a woman or vice- versa (father - son, mother - daughter, etc.) but the emotions evoked in beholding beauty of any kind (e.g. a sunset, a work of art, etc.). All of Ayn Rand's characters except Gail Wynand in "The Foutainhead" rarely speak of love in the romantic sense and when Wynand does I am not always sure its all that romantic. So musing number one -- does Objectivisim deny the reality and value of emotions all together? Is there not value in ones emotions recognizing that choices and decisions should never be based entirely upon emotions?

Another thought I have along the same lines is that to a greater or lesser degree all raltionships involve some level of trust. The objectivist's position on trust seems to me to be summed up thusly: as long as trust is based on logical and rational, observable facts then trust is given. However no matter how much we may wish that everyone were totally open, honest, candid, and forthright - humans are seldom if ever so transparent that we can depend on our observations of them and their actions in order to garner the rational evidence that we should trust them. We must therefore rely on our intuition about them - which at least in part is based on our feelings about them and that is not rational. So where does and how does trust enter into the Objectivists life?

In a post here on OL, (I am paraphrasing here) some one wrote that they do not and have not relied on the writings of others to reach their conclusions about life -- that they had reached their own conclusiosn about life long before with out books and that one should base thier life's philosphy only independant thinking. Seemingly the writer was agreed with -- does this also represent rational objectivist theory? Because the one thing that distiguishes man from the rest of the animal kindom is the acquisition of knowledge! Knowldge accumulated over time became cataloged in writings and books - for the benefit of future men! While we certainly should be thinking for ourselves, we can also have the benefit of the thinking and knowldge of those who went before us. Through independant thinking and evaluation we judge whether that knowledge is true, valid and if it has any benfit for us. I am confused about what objectivists then base their own life's philosophy on -- I don't believe that we are born with the capacity to reach conclusions about things with no input or only the input observable and exprienced by us alone? That does not seem rational to me. So how does one gain enough knowledge in order to develop ones life philosophy?

There are a few more things that I am wondering about (religion in particular) but I shall save them for another posting. I only ask that anyone reading this remember that I am not yet even at the level of a novice objectivist and much of what is written will probably fall far short of what otherwise might be considered "common sense" for the true objectivist.

[Ross Barlow]

That was a fine post, seeker. I would like to address one point you make. You wrote:

<<Still, there are facets of Objectivism that seem puzzling to me. One of them is that it seems that the philosophy of Objectivism expects that man is to behave in such a rational manner as to totally deny that man is also an emotional being. In seems the objectivists ideal role model would me Mr. Spock from the old Star Trek TV series -- always saying "it isn't logical" and denying or with holding all emotions in every situation…..>>

Your point is well taken, and I understand perfectly why you see this impression jump right out at you. Rand’s heroes are often Spartan in their rigorous rationality, and their emotional lives are often overshadowed, seemingly stunted.

But the spirit of Objectivism was meant to also encompass the powerful emotional joy of living and of loving those you value, even if we do not see them as prominent features of the philosophy at first. Do not feel bad about this: many, many people perceive Objectivism this way, and some never do tune in to the rich emotional component it has. You know that emotions – in their proper sphere – are important, so you will not become the kind of humorless “logical zombie” that this movement is littered with.

I think that Rand’s aesthetic sense is helpful here. I might suggest reading *The Romantic Manifesto*, especially making a list of Rand’s recommendations in literature and film. Also pertinent are the numerous movie and book reviews in the *Objectivist Newsletter* and *The Objectivist*. Not everyone reacts the same to her sense of aesthetics, but I find that it is a great match to my own. If you already know most of these works, or if you are experiencing some of them for the first time, her recommendations and favorites can broaden your understanding of this emotional side of Rand’s Objectivism.

(Of course, being a proponent of this being an “open” system, I think we can add our own favorites to the list and call it our genuine revised version. E.g., I love Beethoven, all official Objectivist dogma to the contrary notwithstanding.)

As a young man, I knew nothing of Classical music, but Rand’s mentions of Rachmaninoff et al made me curious, thus broadening my horizons beyond belief. There is much joy, albeit mixed with struggle, in her emotional-aesthetic worldview.

Perhaps Rand’s philosophical emphasis had to be so radically focused upon the supreme importance of reason and rationality because the 20th century was so hostile to them. She came out of the madness of Revolutionary Russia into an America that was always disappointing her by its irrationality in both philosophy and culture. Emotions did not need a champion, but reason did and does.

As to the temptation to read Objectivism as being a grim duty to be rational even at the expense of throttling your emotional life, many have fallen for this and have become zealous so-called “rationalists.” The parallels to religious orthodoxy are obvious here, as the stern-mouthed “Objectivist” puritanically condemns anyone too frivolous or anyone diverging from his own narrow fix on what is “rational.” He might say: “The system is closed, damn it, so watch your heretical thoughts there, boy!”

The perversity of turning a commitment to rationality into a religious-like dogmatic mantra, precluding further original thought, is grotesque, but it has been with the movement since its early days. The only emotions these puritans seem to feel are an intense need to belong to a creed, anger, and the love of lashing out at heretics. Centuries ago, you could find the same mentality gleefully adding sticks to the fire of an auto de fe.

There is also a close parallel between the emotionally-dead “logical” Objectivist and fanatical ideologues such as some doctrinaire Marxists.

Rand intended a balance between reason and emotion, each sticking to its own proper function to ensure a life that is joyfully flourishing on this good earth. It sounds like you already know very well of this balance.

-Ross Barlow.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Seeker,

I will give you a more extended post later. I want to make one comment now.

What a shame it is that many seasoned Objectivists do not do a periodical spiritual tune-up and ask the good questions you just asked. (This would be called checking their premises.)

You are going to be just fine with your new knowledge.

Michael

[Ross Barlow]

I want to add that the film *Equilibrium* (2002), which I reviewed briefly on the OL Movies and Entertainment forum, reminds me of the point you brought up, seeker.

In this movie’s future world, all emotions are outlawed and chemically suppressed, and all artwork of any kind is destroyed on discovery.

What I am very curious about is this: What does that statue of Atlas mean in the film’s overall message? Writer/director Kurt Wimmer did not seem to put anything unessential into his creation.

Really, see this movie.

-Ross Barlow.

[seeker]

Thanks so much Ross - your articulated pretty much what I was thinking objectivism should embrace. I am greatful for your comments and suggestions. I am begining to see that the objectivism movement is surely mischaracterised by many people. Your comments regarding the postion of rigid doctrine and a closed mind seem to me to be right on.

Quote

As to the temptation to read Objectivism as being a grim duty to be rational even at the expense of throttling your emotional life, many have fallen for this and have become zealous so-called “rationalists.” The parallels to religious orthodoxy are obvious here, as the stern-mouthed “Objectivist” puritanically condemns anyone too frivolous or anyone diverging from his own narrow fix on what is “rational.” He might say: “The system is closed, damn it, so watch your heretical thoughts there, boy!”

The perversity of turning a commitment to rationality into a religious-like dogmatic mantra, precluding further original thought, is grotesque, but it has been with the movement since its early days. The only emotions these puritans seem to feel are an intense need to belong to a creed, anger, and the love of lashing out at heretics. Centuries ago, you could find the same mentality gleefully adding sticks to the fire of an auto de fe.

There is also a close parallel between the emotionally-dead “logical” Objectivist and fanatical ideologues such as some doctrinaire Marxists.

end quote

If the whole movement is closed -- would that not require a closed mind? Which does not seem rational to me! If objectivism is growing surely it must be developing greater insights leading to either refining its tennents or developing new tennents. So far I see nothing in AR's writings that indicate that her thinking alone is set in cement and that objectivism has been perfected, she did not claim to be omnipotent. It seems to me thta AR would object to that idea. I used to think that the US Consitution should be that rigidly adhered to -- but now I see that the founding fathers could not and did not forsee every circumstance and condition that would arise in the future, which is why they made provsions to ammend it. If with our rational mind we establish that a new situation exists that must be adressed in the constitution then change is required. Fundamentally philosphy must be constatnly evaluated and refined when needed to grow -- this seems especially true for objectivism. It seems to me that if it does not grow then it will die - whithering away and rotting from the inside out.

Again, thank you for your kind and thoughtful remarks. They were very helpful.

\\Chuck McCoy (Seeker)

[bmacwilliam]

Seeker Wrote:

"Much of what I do see and understand of Objectivism seems to me to be the only philosophy that offers solutions to these fatal flaws"

I think this is one of the most dangerous positions you could possibly take. Rand has a forceful and convincing tone and I see where this conclusion might come from, but I for one do not share it.

If you are interested in philosophy, read other philosophers as well. Read about what others say about fatal flaws in Objectivism. Then make up your own mind. Despite what Rand might say, Kant is not evil.

Bertrand Russell wrote something that I truly believe, (even though I can't remember the exact quote)

He said something about fools and despots (or something) having such certainty while the wisest of us seemed to have so many doubts. I believe this. If somebody has "THE" answer, they're probably wrong and have sinister or at the very least narcissistic motives.

For this reason I do not like Rand as a writer at all. I have an intellectual interest in the content of her writing and philosophy, but disagree with a substantial amount of her ideas as well.

I must say that many Objectivists are really an angry intolerant lot. However, this is not the case here it seems.

Bob

Edited September 1, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

Chuck,

Here's a little question(s) for you to think about. If Objectivism offers "the one true way" to solve society's problems, have a quick look at the history of what has happenned internally in the movement and extrapolate that (logically, rationally of course) to what would happen if an Objectivist political party were to win power.

Or, go to a stricter Objectivist forum and voice dissent and see what happens. Extrapolate that to a hypothetical disagreement you might have with an Objectivist government. What does that look like to you?

One time, I had the nerve to suggest to a forum moderator (highly respected apparently in the particular Objectivist community in question) that I didn't think her argument was terribly rational. She had just finished a "rational" argument justifying her choice to remain morbidly obese and to do nothing to improve her health. I was instantly banned after expressing a little concern for her "logic".

Harsh irrational and emotional decisions are very common. I'll give you one guess who also made many of these types of decisions.

Bob

Edited September 1, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[Rich Engle]

I just rolled in late and started skimming this thread, which is a good one.

I don't think Objectivism itself is at "fault" for anything. Objectivism is a system, and systems are good, but they are only systems, which means they scream out in the end, saying "integrate me!".

There will always be people that adhere to things. I did, and it was Objectivism, as I knew it. The big chunks stood out, that's for sure. It can be a trap, all things of this nature are traps.

I will never entertain any other memory of Ayn Rand than that she was a heroine. She was fantastic. Ayn Rand was the bomb .

And, she was also human, and full of feeling. That only makes her more to me.

This raging we have, I understand it some. I understand the profundity of what happens when you read Atlas, or The Fountainhead; it is, in fact, tantamount to a religious conversion event. There are only a couple of things I remember that were like this to me, and for sure reading Atlas was one. But it was not the Alpha/Omega. It was something that needed done, and she did it. There is more; for sure, there is more. That is no fault of hers; she did her job, with interest.

As to the rest of it, the current state, I believe it will upright itself.

rde

[seeker]

I can see that my original post can lead one to think that I believe objectivism is THE answer. But I said it "seems" to be the one philosphy offering solutions, I was trying to indicate that the jury was still out and that I was uncertain. I did not intend for it to be a dogmatic declaration that Objectivism was the answer. However, Bob, you have made an excellent point that I need to read other philosphers as well. I plead ignorance of other philosphies - having only superficailly been exposed to some of them at best, The problem I have is that until I read AR's books I thought philosphy to be an intellectual game played by pompus fools who knew nothing about real life but thought the knew what was best for everyone else. Its hard to get past that thought. However, AR blasted me right out of my boots with what seems to make such perfect sense to me -- in a way sort of giving voice to some of what I have been thinking for years. She struck a resonant cord in me and hence my enthusiasim for objectivism.

But having said that, I hasten to follow up with the fact that I am still very much a babe in the woods when it comes to objectivism or any other philosophy. Honestly I am having a hard enough time just getting familiar with this one philosophy that I am not ready to entertain the study of even one more philosophy at this time. My take on Objectivism so far is that it seems to be where the rubber meets the road - in every day practical living. (e.g. not a theory but an accurate analysis of the way things are and seems to offer solutions that make a lot of sense) But certainly a prudent man needs to critcally analyze the offerings of Objectivism and weigh them against what others have offered. A stage that I have not yet reached but know I must go through. There is much to weigh, I can easily see spending an entire life time studying, meditating, evaluating and reaching conclusions. For me at age 66 and retired, what I learn and how I incorporate in to my life will not have the same impact and value for me that it would have 45 years ago. I am not seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge either - but some how at this point in my life, I want to understand what forces are at work, how they work and to what end they may lead in the living of life.

Through AR's novels, I came to an epiphany -- that I have lived my whole life thus far with out any philosphy for living - or at the very least was not aware by what philosphy I was living life, nor did it ever occur to me that I could/should critcally analyze and clearly define it. So while it is late in my life to do this - it not too late to do it. If for no other reason that personal satisfaction leading to greater contentment with life. Perhaps even being able to leave behind more than an epitath on my grave marker. Hence the journey begins.

\\Chuck

Seeker Wrote:

"Much of what I do see and understand of Objectivism seems to me to be the only philosophy that offers solutions to these fatal flaws"

I think this is one of the most dangerous positions you could possibly take. Rand has a forceful and convincing tone and I see where this conclusion might come from, but I for one do not share it.

If you are interested in philosophy, read other philosophers as well. Read about what others say about fatal flaws in Objectivism. Then make up your own mind. Despite what Rand might say, Kant is not evil.

Bertrand Russell wrote something that I truly believe, (even though I can't remember the exact quote)

He said something about fools and despots (or something) having such certainty while the wisest of us seemed to have so many doubts. I believe this. If somebody has "THE" answer, they're probably wrong and have sinister or at the very least narcissistic motives.

For this reason I do not like Rand as a writer at all. I have an intellectual interest in the content of her writing and philosophy, but disagree with a substantial amount of her ideas as well.

I must say that many Objectivists are really an angry intolerant lot. However, this is not the case here it seems.

Bob

[Selene]

I can see that my original post can lead one to think that I believe objectivism is THE answer. But I said it "seems" to be the one philosphy offering solutions, I was trying to indicate that the jury was still out and that I was uncertain. I did not intend for it to be a dogmatic declaration that Objectivism was the answer. However, Bob, you have made an excellent point that I need to read other philosphers as well. I plead ignorance of other philosphies - having only superficailly been exposed to some of them at best, The problem I have is that until I read AR's books I thought philosphy to be an intellectual game played by pompus fools who knew nothing about real life but thought the knew what was best for everyone else. Its hard to get past that thought. However, AR blasted me right out of my boots with what seems to make such perfect sense to me -- in a way sort of giving voice to some of what I have been thinking for years. She struck a resonant cord in me and hence my enthusiasim for objectivism.

But having said that, I hasten to follow up with the fact that I am still very much a babe in the woods when it comes to objectivism or any other philosophy. Honestly I am having a hard enough time just getting familiar with this one philosophy that I am not ready to entertain the study of even one more philosophy at this time. My take on Objectivism so far is that it seems to be where the rubber meets the road - in every day practical living. (e.g. not a theory but an accurate analysis of the way things are and seems to offer solutions that make a lot of sense) But certainly a prudent man needs to critcally analyze the offerings of Objectivism and weigh them against what others have offered. A stage that I have not yet reached but know I must go through. There is much to weigh, I can easily see spending an entire life time studying, meditating, evaluating and reaching conclusions. For me at age 66 and retired, what I learn and how I incorporate in to my life will not have the same impact and value for me that it would have 45 years ago. I am not seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge either - but some how at this point in my life, I want to understand what forces are at work, how they work and to what end they may lead in the living of life.

Through AR's novels, I came to an epiphany -- that I have lived my whole life thus far with out any philosphy for living - or at the very least was not aware by what philosphy I was living life, nor did it ever occur to me that I could/should critcally analyze and clearly define it. So while it is late in my life to do this - it not too late to do it. If for no other reason that personal satisfaction leading to greater contentment with life. Perhaps even being able to leave behind more than an epitath on my grave marker. Hence the journey begins.

\\Chuck

Seeker Wrote:

"Much of what I do see and understand of Objectivism seems to me to be the only philosophy that offers solutions to these fatal flaws"

I think this is one of the most dangerous positions you could possibly take. Rand has a forceful and convincing tone and I see where this conclusion might come from, but I for one do not share it.

If you are interested in philosophy, read other philosophers as well. Read about what others say about fatal flaws in Objectivism. Then make up your own mind. Despite what Rand might say, Kant is not evil.

Bertrand Russell wrote something that I truly believe, (even though I can't remember the exact quote)

He said something about fools and despots (or something) having such certainty while the wisest of us seemed to have so many doubts. I believe this. If somebody has "THE" answer, they're probably wrong and have sinister or at the very least narcissistic motives.

For this reason I do not like Rand as a writer at all. I have an intellectual interest in the content of her writing and philosophy, but disagree with a substantial amount of her ideas as well.

I must say that many Objectivists are really an angry intolerant lot. However, this is not the case here it seems.

Bob

[BaalChatzaf]

-------------snip for conservation of disk space------------------

------------ due note is taken of reference to Spock ---------------------------

There are a few more things that I am wondering about (religion in particular) but I shall save them for another posting. I only ask that anyone reading this remember that I am not yet even at the level of a novice objectivist and much of what is written will probably fall far short of what otherwise might be considered "common sense" for the true objectivist.

From a strong O'ist P.O.V. Spock is not ideal. When he is on a Vulcan roll, he is a Rationalist. O'ists do not hold that emotions be suppressed, rather they advocate that emotions follow some kind of integrated reality based reason. In this respect, the O'ist are in agreement with Aristotle on the matter of emotion/passion. See -The Nichomachean Ethics-. A properly functioning reason guided human will not be emotionally cold nor will he be emotionally out of control. Where a situation calls for indignation or anger he will be indignant or angry. Spock spends half his time imposing his Vulcan self on his Human self. He suffers unnecessarily. In the later Star Trek movies, Spock seems to be getting some sense of proportion which is closer to the Aristotelean Mean than the younger Spock. Spock was at his most lovable when his Human Self overcame his Vulcan Self.

I have learned from my course on Aristotle that he is a god-awful physicist but an excellent psychologist. He has a pretty good grasp of how humans should function, when they are functioning well.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 12, 2007 by BaalChatzaf