An Essay On Objectivism

[rodney203]

I invite all to read an essay titled "Objectivism By Conversion", by Pamela Hewitt. The essay is easily searchable online and speaks of something about followers of Objectivism. It is near to my heart because I am one of the people of which Pam writes.

The overall theme of the essay is excellent and I agree with it. However, near the end of the essay she makes a point which seems out of place or strange for a rational, scientific person. If anyone would care to read the essay and point out the passage I'm referring to, it would be most gratifying.

[9thdoctor]

Here’s a link. Thankfully it’s pretty brief. I think it’s nonsense, and it doesn’t jibe with my experiences with Objectivists. She divides them into two classes, those whose convictions were already consonant with Rand’s when they encountered her work, and those coming in with more or less no convictions at all. The second group become the type she doesn’t like, practicing “religious adherence”, rigidly defending Orren Boyles and the theory of evolution. The last line indicates that she feels the first type are the “true” Objectivists.

Well, my main experiences with dogmatic closed minded Objectivists all belong to the first group, those I got to know well enough to hear their biographical details. Plus, I don’t belong to either group. When I first encountered Rand I’d just read (by choice, mind you) Teilhard de Chardin’s The Phenomenon of Man, over the summer before starting college. My first semester I was assigned The Fountainhead in a class taught by a professor who was pro-Rand. There were debates both in and outside class, which I roundly lost. A few months later, I started picking up her stuff, figuring I needed to refute her at least in my own mind, and the rest, as they say, is history. Thus, I had philosophical views before reading Rand, and I wouldn’t reference the Road to Damascus to describe my “conversion”.

I assume the part about evolution is what you’re calling strange. Hope you’re gratified, but I’m not going to address it further, unless there’s someone looking to defend her on it. Sorry, but this essay was garbage.

[rodney203]

Yes, the following idea is a problem for me:

Quote: "any suggestion to the Objectivist groupies that Evolution is less than sustainable as a serious theory once subject to serious Objective analysis ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. As indeed does the observation that there is no evidence whatsoever for the presence of a "sub-conscious"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that there is evidence for both phenomenon.

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy or agree with the basic theme of the essay. How something can seem true enough for one, but not another?????? So you don't consider yourself a student of Objectivism?? So I wonder what makes you be here?

I should clarify though that I am the first kind of person- the "self made" type, not the kind described by the title.

[9thdoctor]

Quote: "any suggestion to the Objectivist groupies that Evolution is less than sustainable as a serious theory once subject to serious Objective analysis

There was a thread about David Berlinski vs. evolution months ago, if you look it up you may find the discussion interesting (I honestly don’t remember if there was much depth to it).

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy or agree with the basic theme of the essay. How something can seem true enough for one, but not another??????

It’s a matter of your experiences, and unless you’ve gotten to know a lot of people in Rand-land, how can you generalize? As HarriPei might say, when did she get her green light to induction?

So you don't consider yourself a student of Objectivism?? So I wonder what makes you be here?

I think you misread my sentence about the Road to Damascus.

[kiaer.ts]

I am what the author describes as an autonomous Objectivist. I was introduced to Rand by a former friend who, having read The Virtue of Selfishness, looked for me between classes and threw the book on my desk saying, "Here, you'll like this." We had not spoken for three years. He was right. I agreed and had already agreed with 99% of what Rand said. She simply presnted her arguments logically with the premises I held implicitly made explicit.

The rest of what the essayist says is non sequitur.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Ted Keer

[rodney203]

I, too, started with "The Virtue Of Selfishness".

[BaalChatzaf]

There was a thread about David Berlinski vs. evolution months ago, if you look it up you may find the discussion interesting (I honestly don't remember if there was much depth to it).

David Berlinski is glib and clever. He is not deep.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[rodney203]

Ted Wrote:

"I am what the author describes as an autonomous Objectivist. I was introduced ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To love ideas, and see Objectivism as the best thought-out system, and get it right too, is a very rare thing.

[Peter]

Pamela Hewitt wrote:

Yet any suggestion to the Objectivist groupies that Evolution is less than sustainable as a serious theory once subject to serious Objective analysis usually brings hysteria.

End quote

It is sustainable as a serious theory. What in the heck is she talking about? Serious objections to it, such as the time needed for a cline (a change within a species) to occur have changed the theory. It is a continuously verifiable scientific theory. The essential theory started by Darwin hhas been changed and added to.

For instance I recently read a study showing that the interstate transportation system which was expanded greatly in the 1950’s caused huge numbers of deaths in the butterfly population, as they were flattened on the windshields of the more quickly moving and more numerous vehicles. It took evolution a mere 50 years to change the habits of butterflies. More of them now fly above the height of moving vehicles to avoid death.

Pamela wrote:

As indeed does the observation that there is no evidence whatsoever for the presence of a "sub-conscious".

End quote

Now that I think of it, what have I read about the “subconscious” lately? I just looked the term up on Wikipedia. How odd. Scientists and reputable medical professionals use the term “unconscious,” not “subconscious.” Freud’s theories have been roundly repudiated. The term is still championed by “new age” gurus exclusively.

The brain is a multi-layered organism. Peter Reidy recently compared it to a layered computer. I guess I should stop using the term “subconscious” myself. It may be time to look up the new info on fMRI's. Back when I had satellite TV I could watch the UCSD channel's televised student lectures which kept me informed

Peter

[anthony]

Ted Wrote:

"I am what the author describes as an autonomous Objectivist. I was introduced ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To love ideas, and see Objectivism as the best thought-out system, and get it right too, is a very rare thing.

Rodney, right.

That is a severe filtering out process. Sort of like "there are old soldiers, and there are bold soldiers, but few old, bold, soldiers."

[kiaer.ts]

Ted Wrote:

"I am what the author describes as an autonomous Objectivist. I was introduced ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To love ideas, and see Objectivism as the best thought-out system, and get it right too, is a very rare thing.

A large amount of Rand's thought derives from the Scholastics. She was introduced to their thinking by Isabel Paterson. My Father was taught by Jesuits, and passed on much of that. His favorite saying when I was a boy was "Only you can make you happy."

[PDS]

The article is underwhelming.

The author doesn't seem to understand that Objectivism is simply a proper noun for "living consistent with reality." As such, one could theoretically be an Objectivist without having ever read Rand, HarriPei, or anybody else.

[Reidy]

I have gone on record in various Objectivist fora stating, to varying reactions, that people who claim to be what she is calling "autonomous" Objectivists are the biggest phonies I've ever met (not all of them, just the ones I've met). What I think is actually going on is that these people have what Rand would have called a sense-of-life affinity for her writings, and they tell themselves ex post facto that they had already hit on her theories. Like people who get to the end of a mystery story and say they knew the killer all along. Show me reliably dated writings or reliable eyewitness testimony and I'll change my mind.

Hewitt is making a testable claim: converted Objectivists are more dogmatic and closed-minded than the autonomous ones. My informal observation bears a low-negative correlation with this. The self-professed autonomous often move on quickly to something else, or they try to rationalize a fusion of Objectivism with patently incompatible notions, because their interest in Rand was emotional rather than intellectual.

[Mike11]

The author doesn't seem to understand that Objectivism is simply a proper noun for "living consistent with reality."

I recommend cutting down on the lsd.

[9thdoctor]

The self-professed autonomous often move on quickly to something else, or they try to rationalize a fusion of Objectivism with patently incompatible notions, because their interest in Rand was emotional rather than intellectual.

Continuing my story from above, in the class where I was first exposed to Rand, there was another student who went for it hook, line and sinker. She finished The Fountainhead and was reading Atlas Shrugged well before the semester was over. I ran into her 1, maybe 2 years later, by which time I’d won myself over, and I asked her about whether she was still into Rand etc. Nope. She’d become a Buddhist. Was hooked on yoga. Seemed happy. She was amazed by my volte-face. Maybe the harder won converts are the best ones, but Hewitt doesn't even allow that there are such people.

[rodney203]

Starting this topic, I really hit the jackpot. This isn't even why I started the topic, but I love it! I truly did not expect the disdain shown for Hewitt's idea; and at least one of these "calm individuals" has even levied the charge of emotionalism toward Objectivism at MY group. Please notice too that in the reaction of the detractors to Hewitt's article they are acknowledging the existence of such a group of a more "natural" type of Objectivist, as contrasted with others.

Well, I am guilty of emotionalism, dogmatism, etc., as charged; to wit:

Exhibit A- Remembering (a little emotionally actually) where I was standing (Books-a-million) when I opened The Virtue Of Selfishness, and had finally, after half a lifetime of searching, found another person who at least tried to think consistently and in terms of principles; and it was a WOMAN yet! Kicking myself still, for not writing the date down on the inside cover of the paperback, so I would remember when. (Emotionalism)

Exhibit B- Getting online after a few years of study and being extremely disappointed by a sea of people attracted to Objectivist writings, but who don't truly get it. (dogmatism)

If anyone can come up with more "isms", I'm sure I"m probably guilty of them, and I'll be happy to explain why.

Thanks to all for the further confirmations of what I have been observing. And I didn't even ask for it!

[rodney203]

ND, your short description of that woman in your class does NOT strike me of someone who was a "natural" type of Objectivist.

[9thdoctor]

Well, I am guilty of emotionalism, dogmatism, etc., as charged;

You seem like a good guy, so I say this in jest: have you checked out SLOP?

ND, your short description of that woman in your class does NOT strike me of someone who was a "natural" type of Objectivist.

You’ll just have to take my word for it that if you asked her, immediately after reading Atlas Shrugged, she’d have said she was sold, wow this is just what I’ve always thought, been looking for, etc. I’m not sure if that’s what you mean by “natural”, and I’m not even sure if it’s Hewitt’s type 1 or 2 (you’d think Objectivism was diabetes!). I don’t think she was particularly intellectual, before or after, does that lead to her being a 2? Hewitt’s categories are useless, that was my critique from the get go.

EDIT: I just remembered another detail, she was actually campaigning for socialized medicine. Handing out literature, that was part of how we started talking. And this was before Clinton was elected. Not "health care reform" either, the words "socialized medicine" were used.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[rodney203]

ND wrote:

"I don’t think she was particularly intellectual, before or after, does that lead to her being a 2?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes ND, I think that would definitely be at least evidence of not being the more "natural" type; keeping in mind too that people can also fake being intellectual. Anyone who just "drops" the Objectivist outlook never really understood it. Once one really understands the system one can't just drop it, for the same reason that one can't start believing again that the world is flat, or that Newton's laws are more accurate than Einstein's insights.

I want to make it clear that I don't "worship" Rand nor Objectivism. I think of it more like a focal point and common means communication between us. All I have ever intended to convey was that this system is the best thought out one I have found. If I ever found a better system I would proceed to study it. However, I also know that any such better system would have to have much in common with Objectivism.

ND:

"You seem like a good guy, so I say this in jest: have you checked out SLOP?"

----------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks. I am totally dedicated to facts and the truth as best I can discern. I make mistakes. I know of SOLP. But I'm not there, aren't I. I'm still here.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Cass (Pam) and Regi had a hard time with the forums.

For the record, this is the same Pam (Cass) who wrote the first review of PARC, calling it The Vindication of Ayn Rand. They even got Valliant on their forum for a while until it became obvious to Valliant that there was a lot more audience with Perigo. So without ceremony, he dumped them, as did Hsieh and other fundies.

I agree with Cass that there are people who think for themselves and people who are dogmatic. I don't agree that these are the only kinds of Objectivists, nor do I agree with her characterizations of them except for a few points.

Whenever I read her work, and that of Regi Firehammer, I get the impression that they are talking down to the reader. I think this comes from the fact that when they get enamored with a theory, they latch on to it and start preaching without much critical thinking beforehand. Then, when they do not get much of a response, I have seen them say that they don't really care what others think.

Underneath, I believe they are not bad people. But they are not great thinkers (too much theory for too little reality). They give the impression that they want to be accepted as such. I believe they are just lonely and frustrated and overreaching in the wrong places to fix it.

Michael

[rodney203]

Michael, elaborate further on one or two other kinds of Objectivists, showing how they don't fit well into the general groups mentioned.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rodney.

Sure, that's easy. You have Objectivist guru wannabes. They're not in it for the dogma, nor the ideas, albeit these things are on their radar. They want to preach and be the preachers. They want a flock.

Objectivist personality cult followers. These poor fools follow Objectivist guru wannabes and flesh out the respective power structures, making sure they find a place for themselves.

How about intensity? I hold that most people who benefit from Objectivism are people with their own value systems and they take from Rand's ideas the [arts they find valuable and leave the rest behind. We can call them Objectivist-lites if you want to stay with the "Objectivist" name. (See my article The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth.)

There are the anti-Objectivists.These are fanatics of the Randroid type, but the polar opposite. They live to bash Rand. The are the yang to the Randroid yin.

There are Objectivist scholars who balk at being called Objectivist, but they are very interested and knowledgeable in all things Randian.

There are quiet Objectivists who are similar to Objectivist-lites, but they are more intensely personal in their belief. Some lean towards the orthos and some toward the open system, but they all have a couple of things in common: Objectivism as a whole is their moral foundation but they don't like to talk about it in public. They lurk.

Believe it or not, there are criminal Objectivists.

I can think of a few more, but these came off the top of my head.

In short, the world is not divided up into Objectivist this and Objectivist that. The divisions are the traditional ones of good folks, bullies, true-believers, deep thinkers, individualists, control freaks, etc., and if they are in the Objectivist orbit, they all use Objectivism to enhance and/or justify their choices. Notice that this is very similar to how people use other bodies of thought and religions.

This is a long topic, but the essence is the fundamental choice--which is most emphatically not to be or not to be an Objectivist. Not even to think or not to think (which is where I disagree with the traditional Objectivist view).

The fundamental choice each person has to make is to become a good person or to constantly seek immoral shortcuts. Or to halfass it half the time, which is what most people do. In my thinking, the rest comes after that choice--even the part about defining what is good and evil. I base this view on my own observation over life, not on anything I have read.

If you want to have something to believe in--something real and not BS--start by believing that you are a good person, then believe in your own mind, in your own observations and your own independent judgments. Corroborate everything and think it through. And try to be good to people in general as your default attitude. Those beliefs and behaviors will take you further than anything I know of if truth and meaning are what you seek.

Michael

[rodney203]

Thanks for the reply Michael.

I'm willing to let others be the judge as to whether the distinctions made in the original essay are, or are not, more fundamental than your list.

[DavidMcK]

Interesting categories Michael. I would classify myself as the 'lurking' or quiet Objectivist for whom Objectivism is very personal.

The criminal objectivist is interesting also; they can instantly recognize that the way to control people is to control them through their ethics (or the lack thereof). There's a limit though to how much damage they can do since these ideas are so controversial.

[anthony]

Given that Pam Hewitt has simplified in to two very broad categories, and also that there could well be thousands of sub-categories of Objectivist - as many as the number of individuals concerned - I do think that what she wrote needed saying.

As another very broadly defined differential (that quite closely matches hers), I've observed the 2 types as authoritarian -leaning, and as non-, or anti-, authoritarian-leaning.

For what it's worth...

Tony