Living Well
by Joseph Rowlands

Imagine you collect a group of Objectivists together and compare them to some average group within the population. To make it an even fairer comparison, lets assume the non-Objectivist group had the same average IQ as the Objectivist group, in case you assumed that the Objectivist group would normally be higher (perhaps, given a group explicitly interested in philosophical ideas). So we have two groups that seem to differ only in their belief systems. What kind of differences would you expect between these groups? What kind of differences should you expect? Are they the same?

Knowing little else, we could speculate about the Objectivist group based on the ideas the claim to uphold. Here is a group that puts a greater emphasis on productivity and success. They uphold a philosophy that makes heroes out of industrialists and businessmen. The philosophy accepts money, not as a source of evil, but as a symbol of the good. Even the dollar sign is used as an unofficial symbol of the philosophy. Doesn't it seem reasonable to suggest that the Objectivist group would be wealthier?

Or take friendships and romance. Objectivism offers a lot in terms of relationships. By focusing on value-for-value, the trader principle, it should encourage more beneficial relationships. By seeing relationships in terms of value to your own life instead of societal duty, it allows you to stick with the most important and meaningful relationships, and get rid of people who are a burden on your life. By providing a means of recognizing value, it allows you to better select the people you want in your life. By promoting rationality, it should lead to less conflicts. So in terms of friendships and romance, shouldn't we expect the Objectivists to be happier and more successful?

How about the various pleasures in life? Unlike traditional moralities that look down on physical pleasures and sees them as corrupt or dirty, Objectivist recognize a harmony between mind and body and see pleasure as a reward for successful living. So do Objectivists eat better food? Do they listen to better music? Do they have more satisfying sex lives? Do they generally enjoy the benefits of living more than their non-Objectivist counterparts?

How about art? Do Objectivist have more refined taste in books, television, or movies? Do they listen to better music? Do they appreciate fine art? Do they own more art in their homes?

These are all interesting questions and comparisons, and it would be interesting to see how they actually compare. From my own experience, the results aren't very consistent. Objectivists are often poor and don't have serious careers. They are often lonely and isolated from others, with less fulfilling relationships. There don't appreciate the finer things in life, and often take a minimalist approach to life. And their choice in art, particularly movies, is nothing to brag about.

This isn't a rule, of course. I've met Objectivists with excellent taste in art. I've met Objectivists who were extremely successful at their jobs. I've met Objectivist who take fine living seriously. I've even met some who were successful in their relationships. And often these attributes are clustered together, with a few people having it all. In fact, that's kind of the problem. There are exemplars of Objectivist philosophy, and there are plenty of people who don't seem to live up to any of it. So what's going on?

I have three theories. One is that this is a result of the selection process itself. Sometimes people are interested in Objectivism partly because they aren't happy with their current situation. If they were, it would be harder to make such a radical change. And so some people arrive at Objectivism with emotional baggage, in poverty with no skills, poor social skills, and other problems.

The second theory also has to do with selection. It says if we took a group of people interested in Objectivism, we'd have better results. But the people we encounter on the internet, or who are interested in going to conference or local meetings, are more interested in discussing the ideas than they are interested in putting it all into practice. The ones who are interested in putting into practice are too busy living their lives. This isn't meant to suggest that if you stick around for the ideas, you aren't interested in living your life. As I mentioned, there are very successful people who stick around for the ideas. But it does include all of the people who are not interested in living their lives and are more interested in the ideas. And that creates worse results.

The problem with this second theory is that it depends on a large number of successful Objectivists being out there in the world and being successful. How do we know if they exist, or how many there are, or how successful they are? We don't. So it's a way of keeping optimistic about Objectivism, but isn't a product of the empirical data.

The third theory is that people who study Objectivism are often more focused on learning the theory than they are living their lives. These are people who have adopted a mind-body dichotomy to some degree, and holds the world of ideas as superior to the physical realm. This explains some of the minimalism among Objectivists, who pride themselves on living on rice and beans, or wearing the same clothes they had 10 years ago, or living in a tiny apartment or whatever. They view anything above the minimum as wasteful, and consider a better use of time discussing/arguing the philosophy with others. The realm of ideas is what's important to them.

It also explains the lack of money and lack of interest in developing a career. For these people, the ideas of philosophy are more important that success. Plus, they might ask, didn't Atlas Shrugged teach us not to feed the government looters with our productive ability?

Relationships may be a different matter. Maybe they are off-putting with their focus on philosophy, or maybe they can't respect someone who doesn't agree with all the fundamentals, or maybe it goes along with the minimalist view and sees relationships as an unneeded distraction from the realm of ideas. Who knows.

We could speculate endlessly, but I have a wider point I'm getting at. Objectivism is supposed to be a philosophy for living. It is suppose to bring out your best, allow you to pursue values rationally and passionately, and to live a heroic life. And we should be able to see the results. We should be able to see Objectivist living life better than others.

They should be more successful. They should be wealthier. They should be more in harmony with their emotions. They should have better relationships, and be better at keeping them. They should appreciate the finer aspects of life and view them as an integral part of their life. They should be happier and healthier and better looking!

Yes, even better looking. This is a philosophy that seeks the best in everything we do. Why shouldn't that include dressing well, speaking well, and looking good? The minimalist view would discount all of these as unimportant compared to the world of ideas, but we don't live in the world of ideas alone. We live here on earth. We live among other people, and how we look and present ourselves is a big factor in how we interact with them. Protesting that they should not care and should judge you by your superior ideas is simply a denial of facts. But this isn't merely some secondhand value, either. You should want to look good because you appreciate the best in everything, including your own appearance.

Objectivism can be appreciated as a complex, yet integrated system of ideas. But it can also be appreciated as a beacon drawing us ever upwards. It is a challenge to seek the best within us, and the best our lives have to offer.

Discuss this Article (5 messages)