|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
Controlling Language My purpose for writing this essay is to bring to the foreground a certain weakness in what is perhaps the process of Objectivism itself, or just the thinking patterns of too many of its practitioners. As such, this essay is not just a cautionary tale for Objectivists, but also one whose simple, primary message likely must be incorporated into the standard body of Objectivism, if Objectivism is to become a more powerful and pre-eminent philosophy ... assuming Objectivists desire that. The main amendment that I feel needs to be added to the body of Objectivism is this: Do not be so quick to respond in a knee-jerk fashion to another person's use of any "loaded" term or phrase. Make the effort to suspend your pre-programmed reaction and employ a thorough questioning technique to determine what the person meant by that term. From there, come to an agreement over what term could better express the idea they have expressed, at all times pushing for the standardized use of Objectivist terminology when Objectivist ideas are really being expressed, in order to lay the groundwork for the establishment of Objectivism as an easily- and widely-useable philosophy of life. One of the major weaknesses of Objectivism so far, is that Ayn Rand, in her efforts to establish a "controlled vocabulary" of standardized language, loaded certain terms so heavily that her adherents tend to hear those terms used in daily language and have automatically set reactions to them, positive or negative. We choose to become so ruled and automated by semantics, that we turn the better parts of our brains off, and rely upon hostile reflex to get our point across. This reaction to terms can be a self-defeating, very real problem. One such term of which I speak, is "altruism". When an Objectivist hears by mouth or in print the use of the word "altruism" or "altruistic", they tend to go a wee bit nuts ... and too often, much more so than is actually necessary, and for the reason I will explain now: When Ayn Rand spoke of "altruism", she intended it to mean "a brainwashed form of self-sacrifice that is detrimental or catastrophic to those practicing it, which is of benefit only to others". Those weren’t her precise words, of course, but that seems to be the important gist of it. (And remember, getting hung up over precise words is what we’re talking about here, so now is a good time to start controlling that love of reaction.) However, when others speak of "altruism", while they might actually mean what Rand meant, they frequently do not. Rather, what they have in mind is exactly what Rand had in mind when she described Howard Roark’s love for architecture, for making something out of what should be nothing, and what she had in mind when she occasionally supported her much-valued husband Frank O’Connor as an artist. In both cases, Rand knew the value of throwing yourself into what you’re passionate about - even so much so that you neglect your own needs in favor of that which you value, in order that it someday bear the richest fruit possible. When many people think of this notion, they have no better word to describe it than "altruism". But there is a much better word, that more accurately describes the process: investiture. When we are investing in ourselves or in others, we are "venture capitalists" of the spirit. We may likely take an early loss up front in favor of much greater profits down the road. This loss is not to be confused with self-sacrifice, however. We do it for selfish reasons. So, when others speak of some term that Objectivism has programmed us to react strongly to, like "altruism", activate your higher brain and suspend the attack reflex until truly justified. Talk with them and clarify what altruism really means to them and/or what it should really mean. Chances are, they might really mean "investiture". If you do not discover this point because you are too eager to intoxicate yourself upon the high horse of shaming and denouncing that person, I would strongly suggest that you consider hanging your head in shame yourself, as you have just stupidly and childishly driven away a likely Objectivist ally and friend. After all, if we continue to choose to react so strongly to loaded terms without taking the time to examine the intentions behind the words, we alienate and make enemies of too many people who may not possess the controlled vocabulary of Objectivism, but who otherwise live by Objectivist principles, unbeknownst to them or not. Objectivism, as is the case of all philosophies, will always come to that same old fork in the road, even if it lasts to the final days of the human race: down one road, a dark and dismal direction, Objectivism embraces ways that cause it to degenerate into a lonely, bitter clique; down the other road, much more clean and shining, Objectivism learns the importance of -- and techniques for -- reaching out to others of kindred spirit and increasing human potential and overall happiness. With this amendment, I’m steering toward the second road.
Discuss this Article (54 messages) |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
