| | Kat had written, "Ayn Rand's wonderful philosophy for living a productive and happy life." I simply asked if this really is the case. I am not challenging the philosophy's substantive validity here; just asking whether empirically she or others have observed more than anecdotal or biased personal cases, i.e. does the evidence appear to bear this out. From what I have seen, this claim seems unjustified. I am not saying it makes people miserable; but from what I have seen an average group of Objectivists are not more productive or happier than a typical corresponding group of non-Objectivists. I would guess that your typical person who finds and is attracted to Rand is already kind of smart and individualist. But I know plenty of Objectivists who are not that productive, you know, your frustrated-garage/basement-philosopher types who never went to college and can't write, the perpetual graduate students, etc. And of course some are great. Mixed bag, just like normal people.
So Kat, your reply: Stephan, are you an objectivist?
I am not sure. The definitions vary. I believe in one reality, realism, and the efficicacy our senses and reason; in individualism; capitalism (though I take it all the way and reject all uses of aggression, not just some, and therefore and am anarchist). I think some of Rand's views on art and her personal little preferences are interesting but not much more than that; her epistemology has a lot of promise but I don't think it's without flaws. I think her views on altruism and benevolence are kind of cramped and stunted and unrealistic. I don't think we need to agonize over why it's "rational" to be nice to our neighbors. I don't think it's normal to go around saying your husband is your "top value" (who talks like that) or whatever.
So what do you think? Is there a simple test or classification?
You don't think that objectivism makes people happy and productive?
Well, I think that having a basically sound view of reality--not deluding oneself with supernatural or irrational or mystical views, or being unethical by supporting a large, thieving state--helps to keep one happy, yes. I think being efficacious and productive and not walking around feeling guilty for things one is not responsible for can help keep you from being depressed and neurotic. So maybe the ground-level common-sense (as I view it) "sense of life" of Objectivism helps keep you from being less happy than you are. But as people get deeper and deeper into Objectivism and treat it more and more seriously, I don't see that it adds much marginal happiness, if any.
Maybe I've been working too hard and purring too loudly to realize what sourpusses we all are. I have found many incredible people here who share this sense of life. There are happy and productive objectivists all over the world.
Sure. But wouldn't you agree that among Objectivsts too many are indeed the dour, grim, uber-serioso type? And anyway, there are happy and productive normal people all over the world too, who are not Objectivists.
One thing that doesn't make some of us happy is having to dive into a sewer to retrieve the writings of a great philosopher. That was downright disrespectful to both Ayn Rand, the Brandens and those of us who love them.
I think you must be here referring to the fact that Rand's journals are buried in Valliant's commentary? Still, who are you upset with? Rand, for giving Peikoff the right to decide what to do with it? Peikoff, for the choice he made? Valliant himself? Reviewers, like McElroy? Readers of the book? What exactly are you maintaining here? Are you saying something ... should or should not have been done? someone is wicked? What?
It doesn't matter whether or not the events happened, we all know what happened. The book was a malicious attack on people who have dedicated their lives to the objectivist movement and for that reason I condemn the book.
You see, this idea of "condemning" books... well, how do I put this.... It just gives me the hibbie jibbies. BTW I wrote a bit about my early experience with Objectivism and one thing about it (a book burning of Barbara Branden's original Passion biography) that turned me off to organized Objectivist events: How I Became A Libertarian. I'm sure that kid, whereever he is now, loves Valliant's book.
Ethan's response was, One doesn't make a Trend? I wouldn't venture to speak for others. If Objectivism improves my life without harming others, should I care about trends? Living in accordance with reality and with the proper standard of value can only be beneficial.
Fine; but I didn't ask if you care about trends. Kat has made a general comment about it helping people; not that it has helped only her. So your own anecdotal or personal experience does not do much good at supporting her contention, does it?
|
|
