Problems with Objectivism? No. Problems with "Objectivists."

I've seen many articles on the net about supposed problems with Objectivism. The vast majority of these pieces, upon reading, are directed at problems with "objectivists." Now, I'm putting objectivists in quotes, because many of the people who are held up as examples in these articles aren't really objectivists, despite what they say.

One of the most common problems cited by various authors involves what I would call arrogance. That is, that mental state that is the opposite of honest pride and self-esteem. So what gives?

Ethan

Post 1

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 7:48am

You've hit on something important here Ethan. I think confusing personality with the philosophy is part of it. I think a superiority, sort of like "I have the one and only truth (Objectivism)", as you say, an arrogance is also part of it.

John

Post 2

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:03am

Ethan - I think you're missing the point. The people who claim to be Objectivists and give Objectivism a bad name ARE Objectivists. I recently brought this up in the thread about Star, claiming that internal divisions (Cracks) within the Objectivist movement is by a long way better than having 9 or 10 forms of Objectivism out there. As a new Objectivist, I often find myself despairing at some members of SOLO, ARI etc, who simply refuse to co-operate with others who they don't consider to be "proper" Objectivists, as there is too much at risk, too much to be acheived, to be quarrelling inside our own movement.

The things that bring us together should be 10 times more important than the things that tear us apart. Unfortunately, it's not the case. Objectivism needs to change, or it will never become a mainstream ideology. There are some members on this site who I vehemently disagree with on a lot of issues, but I'm proud to say that I'm oart of the same movement as them. We need to realise that there are bigger enemies out there than there are in here.

Anywho, I'm very, VERY tired. I hope that all made sense.

Andy.

Post 3

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:04am

Objectivism needs to change, or it will never become a mainstream ideology.

That would be terrible, the last thing that should happen is the idealogy changes to becomes mainstream. The validity of Objectivism is not subject to a popularity contest. Changing the idealogy to fit some kind of popular idea of what it should be like is exactly what Rand tried so vehemently to prevent. This is the idea of compromising principles. All the problems we see today is because political parties do not stand on principle, instead they have compromised them to get a voting demographic, pitting groups of men against other groups of men to get the piece of the pie, their subsidy, their government hand-out. Objectivism is not a political party, it is a philosophy, you can't compromise principles in a philosophy and still retain the integrity of it. One of the fundamental principles of Objectivism is that A is A. To start and compromise the principles of Objectivism undermines the entire philosophy and opens it up to subjectivism and moral relativism. The whole idea of Objectivism is that there is an objective reality, how can we compromise that?

The idealogy should NOT change to become mainstream, the mainstream should change and discover the idealogy.

(Edited by John Armaos
on 5/24, 11:05am)

Post 4

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:29am

Andrew,

The people who claim to be Objectivists and give Objectivism a bad name ARE Objectivists

No, they aren't. Saying it doesn't make it so. Agreeing with some of it, doesn't make it so.

The point is, an Objectivist is someone who understands and agrees with Objectivism. For example, saying "I'm an Objectivist, but I think altruism is good." or taking that position is a contradiction. The strength of Objectivism is its consistency and agreement with reality. There is room for further growth and understanding, especially in esoteric areas of study, but as a whole it's fine.

Spreading Objectivism is good, and I try to do it. Compromising it to make it more accpetable? Bad.

In any case, Objectivism is a philosophy for individuals. A Capitalist society based on Objectivism doesn't require everyone to be an Objectivist. Sure, it would be great, but unrealistic. Getting government and law locked into it's proper role will go a long way to making things better for everyone.

Objectivists, objectivists, "Objectivists," neo-objectivists, Randian's, etc, etc. It doesn't matter. I prefer the honest people who identify themselves properly in accord with their philosophies. "Objectivists" (note the quote) annoy me when they aren't really Objectivists because that causes confusion. I'm not the gate-keeper of Oism, but I will give my opinion when I see its important.

The thing with all these people above, is that they probably agree with the capitalism part, and that's a good place to find allies. I get along with people of all belief systems. The issue is, when someone wishes to force their ideas on others.

The problem is NOT Objectivism. The problem is with "Objectivists."

Ethan

Post 5

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:30am

John, I agree with you. Objectivism -- in terms of all its core principles -- must NOT change. The philosophy is what it is, and it's fine as it is.

However, the Objectivist movement -- the individuals and groups that declare their support of the philosophy -- definitely MUST change if Objectivism is ever to be taken seriously by larger numbers of people. The behavior of too many Objectivists continues to be an embarrassment to both elements of the term "rational individualism."

Perhaps by "Objectivism" Andy really meant the movement, not the philosophy.

Andy?

Post 6

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:39am

John - You misunderstand me.

I never spoke about compromising principles, that way well have been a mistake on my part. When I said Objectivism needs to change, I was referring to the objectivist movement, as opposed to the philosophy. Our methods are wrong, the way we advocate voluntary co-operation between people whilst at the same time spend much of our effort attacking the principles of other opbjectivists, as opposed to statists, fundamentalists, socialists, and many others, points out a deep contradiction within our movement. Rand was especially guilty of this, such as when she attacked the libertarian movement. Of course, we (Myself included) may find that Objectivism is a superior philosophy to libertarianism, but this is self-defeating. Libertarians should be our allies, as should all right-wing groups, but ESPECIALLY fellow objectivists, whether we regard them right or wrong on specific subjects, as we have more to gain from co-operating with them than we do but creating a line of ideological difference.

Andy.

Thankyou Robert - Nail on the head!
(Edited by Andrew Bowman
on 5/24, 11:40am)

Post 7

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:39am

The "movement" is a mess.

Post 8

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 12:51pm

"Movements" are always messy...... ;-)

Post 9

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 1:02pm

An apt double entendre Mr. Malcolm.

Post 10

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 1:13pm

John - You misunderstand me.

I never spoke about compromising principles, that way well have been a mistake on my part. When I said Objectivism needs to change, I was referring to the objectivist movement, as opposed to the philosophy. Our methods are wrong, the way we advocate voluntary co-operation between people whilst at the same time spend much of our effort attacking the principles of other opbjectivists, as opposed to statists, fundamentalists, socialists, and many others, points out a deep contradiction within our movement. Rand was especially guilty of this, such as when she attacked the libertarian movement. Of course, we (Myself included) may find that Objectivism is a superior philosophy to libertarianism, but this is self-defeating. Libertarians should be our allies, as should all right-wing groups, but ESPECIALLY fellow objectivists, whether we regard them right or wrong on specific subjects, as we have more to gain from co-operating with them than we do but creating a line of ideological difference.

For a minute there I thought maybe I misunderstood you but after finishing reading the latter half of your post I realized I didn't musunderstand you. I agree that often I observe petty fighting among objectivists but all right wing groups should be our allies? The very notion you should ally yourself with other movements that hold ideals that contradict your own is exactly what I'm talking about "compromising principles". Right wing groups include religious fanatics. Are we to ally ourselves with them? Are we now mysticist objectivists? As if there can be such a thing. Although I have more sympathy to Libertarians, they have a tendency to adhere to anarcho-Capitlaist ideals. An ideal which is very destructive to individual rights. No I don't think I misunderstood you.

Post 11

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 1:29pm

John, I agree with you. Objectivism -- in terms of all its core principles -- must NOT change. The philosophy is what it is, and it's fine as it is.

However, the Objectivist movement -- the individuals and groups that declare their support of the philosophy -- definitely MUST change if Objectivism is ever to be taken seriously by larger numbers of people. The behavior of too many Objectivists continues to be an embarrassment to both elements of the term "rational individualism."

Robert I agree with you. But I think Andy took this further and thinks objectivists should associate with all right wing groups. I don't see how you can't compromise principles once you do that.

Post 12

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 1:42pm

John -

I concede my point. Not all right-wing groups are to be trusted, but the economic think-tanks of the libertarian movements are good organisations which (When Objectivism suceeds) will be invaluable to our cause. Some libertarians are anacrhists, but many are decent, freedom-loving people.

Andy.

Post 13

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 2:30pm

Objectivism is a proper name of a philosophical system created by one person. It is used for identity purposes. In this way only would I consider the identity "closed".

Where a small percentage of all people who call themselves Objectivist seem to make the mistake (to me) is to confuse/replace/lose track of their personal identity with the identity of this system, and not realizing/knowing/understanding the difference.

I agree wholeheartedly that it's not Objectivism. A philosophy has to be made living by people living it. How they live it is the impact.

But ultimately, I think people must first be taught critical thinking, self-security, freedom of inquiry, and autonomy. It sounds contradictory, but my advisor taught it this way: "Go look it up yourself! Tell me what you find, and what you think. I ain't gonna spoon feed you!"

Objectivism doesn't help anyone who needs a mental crutch, IMO.

Post 14

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 3:14pm

Ah Jenna - sounds like good Heinlein advice.......

Post 15

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 3:29pm

Jenna wrote:

> But ultimately, I think people must first be taught critical thinking, self-security, freedom of inquiry, and autonomy. It sounds contradictory, but my advisor taught it this way: "Go look it up yourself! Tell me what you find, and what you think. I ain't gonna spoon feed you!"
> Objectivism doesn't help anyone who needs a mental crutch, IMO.

Excellent point Jenna. Just spreading Objectivist thought around as though it were fertilizer is not, in itself, going to grow a crop of egoistic, rational individuals. Those of us that are already receptive to one or more aspects of Objectivism are, and have always been its ready audience and are capable of integrating it into our thinking and thereby improve our lives. But as for the general populace, if we wish to expand the impact of the philosophy, then a comprehensive, detailed, educational strategy needs to be developed and implemented. I completely agree with you that there are a number of fundamental mental, emotional and psychological attributes that need to be developed in people before they are ready to truly understand and appreciate what Objectivism has to offer. Over the past fifty years the technical foundation of the philosophy has been fleshed out. What is now needed is for a group of educators to translate the foundation into a workable program.
--
Jeff

Post 16

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 5:45pm

Ethan Dawe:

No, they aren't. Saying it doesn't make it so. Agreeing with some of it, doesn't make it so.

The point is, an Objectivist is someone who understands and agrees with Objectivism. For example, saying "I'm an Objectivist, but I think altruism is good." or taking that position is a contradiction. The strength of Objectivism is its consistency and agreement with reality. There is room for further growth and understanding, especially in esoteric areas of study, but as a whole it's fine.

It seems you're implying that some who think they are Objectivists actually aren't. I don't think this is the problem. I believe that both sides are true Objectivists. That doesn't mean that individuals will have difficulty applying the philosophy. Beyond this, the behavior of many who are giving Oism a bad name has nothing to do with philosophy and more to do with civility and manners.

Post 17

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 5:54pm

Jordan,

I wasn't referring to the "sides" in the TOC/ARI "war" if that's what you thought I meant.

I was referring to people in general whom I've encountered on the web.

I've found people on both sides of that "war" of many different qualities, some good other bad.

Civility? Don't hold your breath. Not with the level of arrgoance and hyperbole spewing of many of the participants.

Ethan

Post 18

Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 4:27pm

Does this article have anything to do with RoR?

http://rationalargumentator.com/vanitydevourssanity.html

Post 19

Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 4:44pm