Is there an Objectivist in the house?

[Pokarrin]

Having read quite a bit of the available literature (OPAR, Anthem, We The Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Return of the Primitive, and The Virtue of Selfishness), I've decided that I agree with all of the basic principles of Objectivist philosophy; in fact, I can't think of any point I don't agree with. This led me to wonder if I could legitimately call myself an Objectivist. My most obvious problem is that I'm a smoker, which I know for a fact does not advance any possible purpose I might choose for my life. Can I call myself an Objectivist anyway, so long as I know my behavior is irrational? I don't think I can, since Objectivism is quite clear that knowledge that doesn't result in action is pointless. Ayn Rand herself quit smoking when she became convinced that it was unhealthy.

As a result of my ponderings, I began to wonder who could call themselves Objectivist, since I'm willing to bet that no one consistently and in every instance behaves exactly as Ayn Rand would have counseled, nor does anyone always think or behave even in accordance with her written work. Then I remembered a quote of Ayn Rand's that Dr. Peikoff used on p 2 of OPAR (mine was published December 1993) in which she says that, not only does everyone need a philosophy, everyone in fact has one, whether they acknowledge it or not. She defines a philosophy in this context as "an integrated view of existence". This led me to the thought that Objectivism is literally "The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", and in the sense that she describes philosophy in general, could not possibly be anyone else's, since everyone's integrated view of existence is necessarily going to be unique to that person. Based on this, I can only conclude that no one is an Objectivist, since Ayn Rand is now dead.

If I'm being too strict (or perhaps defining Objectivism incorrectly), I would like to know if anything has been written that suggests criteria I could use to determine my position on the Proximity to Rationality Spectrum, or if such a thing could even exist.

[softwareNerd]

People say Christ was the only Christian . In my view there are millions of Christians in the world. I think of Christians as people who believe in Christ as an incarnation of God or at least as the primary, never-outdone prophet. (Therefore, Muslims aren't Christians, though Mohammed came pretty close to being one.) I also think that a general agreement with Christ's alturistic message is and essential, although holding the view that 'we're all sinners", I also include folk who want to be like Mother Teresa, but are really quite far away in practice. People like Mormons may be outside this concept, or they may be on the borderline. Either way, for my purposes, it does not matter.

When it comes to "Objectivist", the first question you've got to ask yourself why you want to form such a concept. Once you have the answer to that, you should be able to proceed more sure-footedly.

Edited July 27, 2008 by softwareNerd

[tito]

My most obvious problem is that I'm a smoker, which I know for a fact does not advance any possible purpose I might choose for my life

Oh really?

"I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."

--Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand did give up when her doctor advised her to, and I would say that to smoke simply because you are addicted is a ludicrous waste of life. But if you enjoy the occasional cigarette, and don't mind running the risk of a slightly shorter life because of it (Though the risks of occasional 'casual' smoking are overblown by just about everyone) then by all means smoke. If it adds no value to your life, and you just do it because of some irrational chemical craving, then just who are you trying to fool?

[John McVey]

Having read quite a bit of the available literature (OPAR, Anthem, We The Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Return of the Primitive, and The Virtue of Selfishness), I've decided that I agree with all of the basic principles of Objectivist philosophy;

Welcome to the Forum!

As a result of my ponderings, I began to wonder who could call themselves Objectivist, since I'm willing to bet that no one consistently and in every instance behaves exactly as Ayn Rand would have counseled, nor does anyone always think or behave even in accordance with her written work.

To be an Objectivist you need to have, first, exercised your own judgement on the truth or otherwise of anything, including Objectivism, accepting what you validate for yourself and not accepting what you can't see for yourself or disagree with, and second, agree with the principles of Objectivism as a consequence of the foregoing independent judgement. People who do the second without the first, those who are unwilling to contemplate saying "I don't agree with Miss Rand on point X," are an annoyance known by the term "Randroids," who give the rest us who do perform the critical first part on independent judgement a bad name.

Now, as part of that independent judgement, you also need to figure out what is in fact part of the philosophy of Objectivism, what is Miss Rand's application of the philosophy to particular issues that are themselves not part of philosophy, and what is an expression of Miss Rand's own value judgements that she measured according to her own standard of value and so which may not at all apply to you. A particular thing she said isn't part of Objectivism just because she said it! In regards to smoking, for example, some say there's no problem whatever, some that it's just a classic case of all things in moderation, and some who don't agree with smoking at all, but none of the three camps can say that the members of the other camps are or are not Objectivists based solely on that point. The same reasoning applies to other controversies with in Objectivism. Another particular that once caused some grief with people was her position in "About a woman president." Sooner or later, once your reading gets wide enough and your judgement thorough enough, you will come the conclusion on some point: Miss Rand made a mistake here. What then, you ask? Of those three divisions I mentioned about what Miss Rand said, if your own judgement leads you to disagree with the philosophy itself, then at that point you should stop calling yourself an Objectivist until such time as you determine for yourself that your judgement was mistaken and that Miss Rand was right. If, on the other hand, you agree with the philosophy itself but not its particular applications or Miss Rand's particular value judgements, then you are indeed still an Objectivist despite your disagreements. Others will argue with you on those points, sometimes even vehemently so, but they (if they are themselves bona fide Objectivists) wont tell you to stop calling yourself an Objectivist unless their own rational judgement based on the evidence you give them leads them to believe that you aren't exercising your own. Likewise, you shouldn't be telling others that they shouldn't call themselves Objectivists except on the same grounds.

So, for the same reason you aren't automatically precluded from calling yourself an Objectivist merely because you disagree with something she said - it depends on how you came to disagree with it and its position in relation to the philosophy itself. The position part you will have to judge for yourself (feel free to ask questions here, it's what the forum is for), but at the very least you need to judge for yourself and agree with the content of OPAR and then once you have thoroughly digested that I recommend the lecture series Understanding Objectivism by Dr Peikoff, available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. There are many other lecture series available there, too, that you might want to examine.

I should also add that should you honestly judge that Miss Rand was mistaken in some part of the philosophy of Objectivism itself, you will still be respected so long as it is your best rational judgement that lead you to that conclusion. You will get a fair hearing from Objectivists if you seek a rational discussion of your disagreement and are fully open to evidence and logical argument. This includes not just this forum here but other good quality Objectivist forums and places of discussion.

Then I remembered a quote of Ayn Rand's that Dr. Peikoff used on p 2 of OPAR (mine was published December 1993) in which she says that, not only does everyone need a philosophy, everyone in fact has one, whether they acknowledge it or not. She defines a philosophy in this context as "an integrated view of existence". This led me to the thought that Objectivism is literally "The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", and in the sense that she describes philosophy in general, could not possibly be anyone else's, since everyone's integrated view of existence is necessarily going to be unique to that person. Based on this, I can only conclude that no one is an Objectivist, since Ayn Rand is now dead.

That's a non-sequitur, ie it does not follow. You're right that the quote means that each of us has to take charge of our minds and figure out what philosophy to follow lest we be lead by the nose by a philosophy of dubious provenance, but it does not follow that the philosophy that we would thereby figure out is unique to each of us. It is the philosophy of Ayn Rand insofar as she discovered it, not that it is uniquely applicable to her alone. It is as nonsensical to say that only Miss Rand is an Objectivist and permitted to use it to live as it is to say that only Newton is permitted to make use of Newtonian mechanics in physics.

The philosophy she discovered is universal to all men, because it is based on the same set of facts faced by us all; that we are physical beings of a certain type, including possessing conceptual consciousnesses operating in the same fashion, living in the same one causal universe whose laws stand independent of our minds and which we must discover by means appropriate to the nature of our minds if we are to be successful at living in that universe. What is discovered on that basis is applicable to all of us: if we each look at reality, carry out the proper thinking method appropriate to our kinds of consiousness, then we will all come to the same conclusion about, and form the same general view of, existence. What differs after that is the concrete applications, such as what concrete purpose one chooses in life. Sorting this distinction out is included within what you'll learn from Understanding Objectivism.

Miss Rand was a trailblazer, and now that she has made the trail the rest of us can follow it more easily than were we left to our own devices. We still have to figure out for ourselves that what she said is right, but her having discovered solutions to problems makes the job a lot easier and quicker than it would otherwise be for us. Some then go on to blaze further trails of their own. There are a number of philosophers and related new intellectuals, here and elsewhere, taking up where Miss Rand left off, adding their contributions to human knowledge and likewise continuing to make life for the rest of us that much better. You, too, can do that, and still be an Objectivist.

JJM

[Grames]

I think someone who knows the basic literature and agrees with it is a beginner Objectivist. Learning how to be rational is harder because it is methodological and so takes time and practice. I recommend close study of Objectivist epistemology as essential to grasping the rational way of thought.

[DragonMaci]

I think someone who knows the basic literature and agrees with it is a beginner Objectivist.

I think the proper term is the one Rand used, ie, student of Objectivism. Unless you mean a higherdegree of knowledge for your term than Rand did hers.

[Grames]

I think the proper term is the one Rand used, ie, student of Objectivism. Unless you mean a higherdegree of knowledge for your term than Rand did hers.

'Student' works well also.

[eriatarka]

People say Christ was the only Christian . In my view there are millions of Christians in the world. I think of Christians as people who believe in Christ as an incarnation of God or at least as the primary, never-outdone prophet.

I disagree with this; I think there are very few Christians in the West, far fewer than the number of Jews/Muslims/atheists. I dont think that simply saying that you believe in Jesus and going to church once a week is sufficient to be a Christian - up until around 1800, being a Christian meant that your life was lived with God as the ultimate focus, that you accepted most of the Bible (including the many passages about the rejection of materialism), paid attention to the Church, and so on. Nowadays this has all changed - most self-professed Christians have no real knowledge of whats in the Bible (especially the Old Testement), and lead completely identical lives to most atheists: they work 9-5 jobs, go home after work and spend time with their familes before bed, base most of their lives around the acquisition of comsumer produts, and so on. The only difference between a modern Christian and an atheist is that the former goes to Church on a Sunday (and forget what theyve heard as soon as they leave the building). Most of modern Christianity is just formalism - an empty system of beliefs which play no meaningful role in the lives of those who claim to believe in them.

I think that unless Christianity plays a large role in someone's life - ie it actually changes their lifestyle, values, and thought processes in fundamental ways - then theyre basically an atheist regardless of how much they claim to love Jesus. 95% of modern Christians would have been labelled as non-believers a few hundred years ago, and for good reason. I'd apply the same logic to all belief systems - abstract 'belief' in something is fairly worthless if it doesnt correlate with fundamental changes in your day-to-day life, and the way you think. Being a Christian/Objectivist/whatever has very little to do with the arguments you agree with and the positions youd be prepared to defend in a debate - this is all just formalism really. Its more about the way that these belief systems change a person's day-to-day life and the actions they take in the world.

Even if someone's read a few Ayn Rand books and agreed with the contents, I dont think that you can really say theyre an Objectivist (or a student of Objectivism) unless theyve actually started making changes in their life to reflect their new beliefs.

Edited July 27, 2008 by eriatarka

[DavidOdden]

This led me to wonder if I could legitimately call myself an Objectivist.

Why do you care? Would things change for you depending on whether it was decided that you can, versus can't call yourself an Objectivist? If you grant the dangers of smoking, would you become more likely to stop smoking if you felt "Yes, I really am an Objectivist"? Or, to put the question differently, is your ability to quit smoking that tightly tied to whether or not you can legitimately call yourself an Objectivist. (The answer is, of course, that you know you should probably stop smoking regardless of what you call yourself, assuming you smoke more than a pack a month).

[Pokarrin]

Why do you care? Would things change for you depending on whether it was decided that you can, versus can't call yourself an Objectivist? If you grant the dangers of smoking, would you become more likely to stop smoking if you felt "Yes, I really am an Objectivist"? Or, to put the question differently, is your ability to quit smoking that tightly tied to whether or not you can legitimately call yourself an Objectivist. (The answer is, of course, that you know you should probably stop smoking regardless of what you call yourself, assuming you smoke more than a pack a month).

A few of you have asked why I care whether I can call myself an Objectivist. I hesitate to say simply that I should use my own rational judgment, because that opens the door for any idiots who want to steal some of Miss Rand's thunder to say whatever they like in the name of her philosophy and claim to be Objectivists in their own rational judgment. Many people on this forum have observed precisely that behavior, and it's potentially poisonous to a philosophy to allow people to do that. One way of preventing it would be if there were some means of objectively determining (in a way demonstrable to others) that you are qualified to speak as an Objectivist, rather than, as I had already been calling myself, a student of Objectivism (Thanks, DragonMaci).

As far as smoking is concerned, I mentioned it solely with regard to Objectivism as an example of irrational behavior on my part, since I do smoke too much and I know it's unhealthy. My status as an Objectivist, however, matters not at all to my decision to quit smoking or not, except inasmuch as it helps clarify my ability to think, and thus to make more intelligent decisions overall.

The rest of my question had to do, finally, with whether Objectivism is to be defined as the total contents of Miss Rand's mind (i.e., all of the knowledge and integrations that made up her view of existence); or simply her published system, which of course would be much less restrictive, as far as membership is concerned. I now suddenly remember that she referred to Objectivism in that same quote as a "philosophic system", not a philosophy, thus perhaps answering my question. If you understand and agree with her system and try to behave accordingly, you're a student; if you succeed in consistently behaving rationally and are able to arrive at the same principles through your own rational thought process, you may call yourself an Objectivist, if you want to.

[EC]

The rest of my question had to do, finally, with whether Objectivism is to be defined as the total contents of Miss Rand's mind (i.e., all of the knowledge and integrations that made up her view of existence); or simply her published system, which of course would be much less restrictive, as far as membership is concerned. I now suddenly remember that she referred to Objectivism in that same quote as a "philosophic system", not a philosophy, thus perhaps answering my question. If you understand and agree with her system and try to behave accordingly, you're a student; if you succeed in consistently behaving rationally and are able to arrive at the same principles through your own rational thought process, you may call yourself an Objectivist, if you want to.

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand as laid down in her writing or given in her speeches, it is not, and does not necessarily include her personal value judgments such as smoking or electing a women president, but can include some of these such as believing homosexuality to be immoral if one can prove the logic of those claims. To be an Objectivist one must find to be true by rational analysis all of what Miss Rand wrote and spoke of with regards to Objectivism, not her personal value judgments, and try to the best of one's ability to apply to one's life it's principles.

[Pokarrin]

It is perhaps too early for there to be a mass movement of Objectivists. But let those of us who are Objectivists at least make sure that what we are spreading is Ayn Rand’s actual ideas, not some distorted hash of them. Let us make sure that in the quest for a national following we are not subverting the integrity of the philosophy to which we are dedicated. If we who understand the issues speak out, our number, whether large or small, is irrelevant; in the long run, we will prevail.

If we engage in quality-control now, refusing to sanction the rewriters of Objectivism whatever the short-term cost and schisms, the long-range result will be a new lease on life for mankind. If we don’t, we are frauds in the short-term and monsters long-range.

Let us not cohabit with or become alchemists in reverse, i.e., men who turn the gold of Ayn Rand into lead.

I should probably have included this quote from Dr. Peikoff's "Fact and Value" article to begin with, since it clearly explains my fear that if I am premature in my self-identification as an Objectivist, I may become one of those frauds he warns us against, however honestly I may have gone about it.

[eriatarka]

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand as laid down in her writing or given in her speeches, it is not, and does not necessarily include her personal value judgments such as smoking or electing a women president, but can include some of these such as believing homosexuality to be immoral if one can prove the logic of those claims. To be an Objectivist one must find to be true by rational analysis all of what Miss Rand wrote and spoke of with regards to Objectivism, not her personal value judgments, and try to the best of one's ability to apply to one's life it's principles.

The difficulty is that Ayn Rand normally wrote in a way where her value judgements were presented as objective conclusions based on her philosophical premises. Its not like she just gave value judgements and left it at that - they were normally backed up by philosophical arguments. The style of writing that she used to argue 'value judgements' such as abstract art being non-objective, or homoseuality being immoral, or women being unsuited for presidency, is pretty much the same as her style when arguing that socialism is evil and suchlike - they are all derivations based on fundamental premises, backed up by arguments. So it's difficult to separate her 'value judgements' from her philosophy without essentially saying "I think Ayn Rands value judgements are the things she wrote which I happen to disagree with" or something equally arbitrary.

The examples you give are good for highlighting the problem - Rand's views on homosexuals and women presidents follow logically from her views on the nature of masculinity and feminity, to the extent where if you agree with her views on the nature of men/women then youre pretty much compelled to agree that homosexuality is wrong, and that women are less suited for positions of power. Are her views on masculinity/feminitity part of her philosophy rather than a personal value judgements? I think she thought so. So if a person believes that her construction of masculinity is wrong, are they being dishonest in identifying themself as an Objectivist?

Edited July 27, 2008 by eriatarka

[DavidOdden]

Many people on this forum have observed precisely that behavior, and it's potentially poisonous to a philosophy to allow people to do that. One way of preventing it would be if there were some means of objectively determining (in a way demonstrable to others) that you are qualified to speak as an Objectivist, rather than, as I had already been calling myself, a student of Objectivism (Thanks, DragonMaci).

This can be done without having some sort of examination procedure. What you do, when someone misrepresents Objectivism, is point out that the statement in question contradicts or is unrelated to Objectivism or, alternatively, insist that they show how it derives from Objectivism. In which case, we needn't care who is or is not an official Objectivist. This is why I think that concern over who is or is not officially an Objectivist is a misplaced concern: what I want to know is, what statements are part of or consistent with Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand), and what is your proof that they are consistent with or actually part of Objectivism. I do not need to know whether the person making the statement is a fully-qualified Objectivist. In particular, if you ended up being weak-willed but fully accept and integrate the philosophy, your personal failing doesn't change the nature of your statements. So maybe you should quit smoking, but the fact that you smoke doesn't mean that your statements are therefore false from the perspective of Objectivism.

[adrock3215]

The style of writing that she used to argue 'value judgements' such as abstract art being non-objective,

Where exactly did she say this? To the best of my knowledge, she never said such a thing.

*** Mod's note: I've split the replies on art to a separate topic. - sN ***

Moreover, I am with David for the most part here. What is the big deal about the label 'Objectivist'? Does it even matter? I'm perfectly content to say: I agree with Rand.

Edited July 27, 2008 by softwareNerd
Added 'split-topic' notice

[DavidOdden]

I should probably have included this quote from Dr. Peikoff's "Fact and Value" article to begin with, since it clearly explains my fear that if I am premature in my self-identification as an Objectivist, I may become one of those frauds he warns us against, however honestly I may have gone about it.

One safeguard against this is to check and prove the premise that what you say is consistent with Objectivism. Rather than just making stuff up which happens to be like what Rand said, use a brief actual quote to anchor your claim. Turn to the first page of the essay "Man's Rights", when you want to characterize rights as "a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law".

[Pokarrin]

I believe I understand what you all have been getting at. It doesn't matter if I call myself an Objectivist or not, so long as I don't represent an opinion as being based on Objectivism without some supporting reference. Any opinions of mine not directly supported by (or derived from) Ayn Rand's (or Leonard Peikoff's?) work are simply mine, and I alone take reponsibility or credit for them. I can't help but feel that I've wasted everyone's time with what seems, in retrospect, a fairly simple matter. If so, I apologize.

As a side note, I have figured out, based on this discussion, why I have been unable to quit smoking; it's rather like choosing a career-do you want to be an electrical engineer, or do you want to design electrical systems? I have been thinking only that I want to not be a smoker because being a smoker is bad for me. When I think about having a cigarette right now, however, I conclude that I do, in fact, want one. Wanting (or even smoking) a single cigarette does not make me a smoker, any more than believing in capitalism makes me an Objectivist, so I have been able to justify every cigarette as just a temporary indulgence. The point is to ask myself why I want a cigarette right now. The answer, of course, is that the chemicals in my brain say so. I am not a creature controlled solely by chemical reactions, and I will no longer behave as if I am. Thank you all (especially DavidOdden; your reasoning is sound and always pointed) for helping me reason this out.

P.S. I didn't start this thread to help me stop smoking, but I'm glad that's where it brought me!

[brian0918]

I think that unless Christianity plays a large role in someone's life - ie it actually changes their lifestyle, values, and thought processes in fundamental ways - then theyre basically an atheist regardless of how much they claim to love Jesus.

I think such people can be called "practical atheists". That is not a complement, though, even coming from a self-professed atheist. They are apathetic about everything, and simply "feel out" a situation to determine what's right or wrong. No actual thought is involved in their conclusions.

No rational atheist should trumpet the claim that most people are actually atheists simply because they are "practical atheists". That is not progress. True progress would be to point out reality: most people act on convenience and whim, and are indecisive on every issue. If they are told enough times that "the public says X", then most people will start to agree with X, whether or not X is true or justifiable or backed up by any evidence or rationale.

Identifying the situation in that way has to be the starting point. Discussing the practical atheism that results from such apathy and laziness only serves to distract from the real problem.

Edited July 28, 2008 by brian0918