About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, October 24, 2008 - 10:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I remember reading a passage where Ayn Rand basically said that someone cannot call himself an Objectivist if he only accepts parts of Objectivism. But I cannot find the quote. I've read a lot of her writings so I have no idea of where to begin...does anybody know what I'm talking about?

Peace,
Jack

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 6:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Rand did say that one should, at most, describe oneself as a student of Objectivism. This would have been an issue especially after her split with Branden. I would assume any relevant statement would be in either Philosophy Who Needs It or The New Left. I'm sure someone here will have an exact reference.

From a Q&A session at the Ford Hall Forum:

"There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone (or their philosophy) with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings—or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods?"

This might be of interest:

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/ess/ess05.html

The bottom line is that one shouldn't write as an "Objectivist" if one disagrees with Rand on any substantive issue, since it amounts to false advertising. There are plenty of people here who believe in such absurdities as "anarcho-capitalism" which Rand excoriated and who call themselves Objectivists. You should judge for yourself how close your ideas fit hers, and whether you think its honest to call yourself an Objectivist. So far as I am aware there is just about no one, not even the most orthodox person at the Ayn Rand Institute, who absolutely agrees with her on everything, see, for instance, Peikoff and Binswanger's now liberal view of homosexuality. I would say that anyone who can knowledgeably agree with the following and who does not disagree with her on an issue like anarchism about which she made strong published condemnations could call themselves an Objectivist.

The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962.
by Ayn Rand

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

1. Metaphysics Objective Reality
2. Epistemology Reason
3. Ethics Self-interest
4. Politics Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Copyright © 1962 by Times-Mirror Co.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 10/25, 9:18am)


Post 2

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 8:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alas! Then what am I?



(Let's not get too creative with our answers, okay?)

jt

Post 3

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 9:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

BTW, since I find Rand's view of human nature problematic, and I see understanding evolution as essential, and individual variation as a fundamental issue in ethics, I call my self a lower-case "objectivist" (for my viewpoints) or a Randian (for my methodology), when it is necessary to point out that I disagree with Rand on such topics as homosexuality.

Post 4

Saturday, October 25, 2008 - 4:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, I don't see the difference between her position on homosexuality and the modern position to be basic enough (in terms of core principles) to warrant concern over the issue of Objectivist vs objectivist - however, you may be right in your take on deriving human nature as different enough to justify the little-O. But even then, the difference is not of the magnitude of having a government versus not having a government. Nor is it a difference in individual rights or different concept of self-defense.



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
JT,

Alas! Then what am I?
You are a sea-faring vessel, docked in the calm bay of Objectivism. You are on an intermittent journey through the tumultuous sea of life. It is here, in this bay, that you clean the crusty barnacles off of your hull -- and repair the wind- and water-borne damage to your sail and fuselage. The tide is highest in this bay and it lifts all boats which take up harbor here.

But life is a journey so that means leaving the bay every once in a while -- even drifting so far out that you can no longer see the shore. Everybody leaves the bay for a while, depending on when all their barnacles have been scraped off. Some of us come and go like the wind, others are familiar stalwarts. In fact, in the middle of a ... [hold on a second] ...


(Let's not get too creative with our answers, okay?)

Oops. My bad!

:-)

Ed


Post 6

Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 1:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

You get a sanction for that one! Nice.

- Bill

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 1:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve wrote,
Ted, I don't see the difference between her position on homosexuality and the modern position to be basic enough (in terms of core principles) to warrant concern over the issue of Objectivist vs objectivist.
You don't?! Rand said that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises . Therefore I regard it as immoral And more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion. Its disgusting." This is not the modern position.

In Ayn Rand Answers, she wrote, "All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults." Here, she seems to have softened her views a bit. I also recall her saying in another context that she did not regard homosexuality as immoral, but simply the result of "bad premises." So, I think she was somewhat conflicted and uncertain about what she thought of it.

It is also well to remember that Rand's views on the issue were largely a product of her time. I'm not sure that were she a young woman in today's culture, she would have held the same position.

Ted, if you think that disagreeing with Rand's views of homosexuality requires a small "o" objectivism, then virtually everyone at the Ayn Rand Institute would have to label themselves small "o" objectivists, because they don't agree with it either. However, it is well to point out that they don't regard her views on the subject as a part of her philosophy, but simply a personal opinion that she happened to hold. For an interesting sidelight on this issue, see:

http://www.thebinarycircumstance.com/2004/01/16/333/paul-varnell-ayn-rand-and-homosexuality/



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 3:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

No, it is not my understanding of homosexuality per se, but my criticism of Rand's notion of human nature - what Ernst Mayr would call her "essentialism" - that makes me leery of describing myself as an Objectivist without qualification. In almost all contexts except a highly technical one I would simply call myself an Objectivist and not make an issue of it. And I may simply be over-cautious here, since I think my empirical bottom up view of human nature is in line with the rest of Rand's principles.

To put it as simply as possible, I see Rand as too often deriving values from the top down. She sees men as essentially rational animals, and thinks that from the premise of rationality one can derive a set of principles and values, those values usually being the same as her personal values. I see men as rational animals, with natures that vary according to their biological makeup, and whose values emerge from the bottom up as they develop. We value sweet tastes and warm softness (infancy) long before we learn to value candy and hugs (childhood) or nutrition and romance (maturity). Reason is used to integrate and sublimate our basic values. That is, we value sweetness first, then learn to use Nutrasweet rather than sugar when we find that we also value the health benefits of controlled blood-sugar levels. Animals have values, they act to gain and keep things, long before, as beasts, they evolve into sapients, or, as infants, develop into reasoning adults

Frankly, I believe that a lot of Rand's opinions were rationalized, but not well-examined. She largely took her views, when they agreed with convention, as granted. Her opinion of homosexuality is a case in point. She did not have homosexual urges. She did not prefer the way other women smelled to the way that men smelled. (A basic biological matter.) And hence she saw heterosexuality as in no need of explanation, and homosexuality as unimaginable. But people vary. each individual has a unique chemical makeup. One's preference for sugar or alcohol or the smell of women or men is in a large part genetically influenced. One has predispositions. Of course environment plays a role, and choice is the greatest of environmental factors. But for some people, certain choices amount to a denial of their natures. Top down reason cannot always override bottom up nature without amounting to spiritual suicide.

I have read anecdeotal reports that Rand's pronunciations on homosexuality, for example, drove certain people to repress themselves. I, personally, was "out" to myself and happily self-confident as a bisexual at 13, and came out to some friends and family at 16 just before I read Rand. Indeed, when I read Rand's Indestructible Robot example I was converted to outright atheism within a week. But when I read her opinion of lesbians, I laughed and said I would change her mind when I met her. But she had died four years prior.

Rand didn't publish an argument about homosexuality. There is no "official" position. She stated that she found it disgusting in her opinion. Rand was not someone to speak of opinions when she thought she knew the truth. I do not see my position on human sexuality as conflicting with Objectivism. I'm simply willing to go so far as to leave an "o" uncapitalized in respect for Rand's wishes.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 10/26, 3:46pm)


Post 9

Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 5:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Perhaps my writing wasn't clear enough. There is a difference between Rand's position and the modern understanding of homosexuality. Her position was wrong - but it was not a pillar of Objectivism. It was not a basic principle of Objectivism. Therefore, no matter which position a person took on that issue, it would not be a factor, or of any importance, in deciding whether or not they should call themselves Objectivists. I agree with Ted's statement that his difference regarding how he understands human nature might be a significant difference, but that his disagreement regarding homosexuality was not.

Bill, I assume you are NOT saying that one must agree with her position that homosexuality is morally wrong to be an Objectivist, and I am assuming that you do NOT consider her pronouncement on homosexuality of major philosophical importance to Objectivism.

Post 10

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think Rand wavered on gun ownership, which is an individual right in the objective sense of the term.

I don't. In spite of the difference of her wavering and me being steadfast, I still consider myself to be a "level-8" Objectivist (somebody who really knows what he's talking about). I came to this forum as approximately a level-6 Objectivist, and you guys have helped to refine my thinking and push me almost to the Objectivist limit (only a handful of people on Earth are level-9 Objectivists).

What's up with my view of "levels" of Objectivism (you ask)?

Level 1 Objectivists only favor Objectivism by mere margin -- such as 51% of their beliefs cohering with Objectivism. Even someone with every belief cohering with Objectivism might not be higher than level-7 or level-8 -- due to insufficient information sets, or insufficient effort of integration (to higher levels of abstraction).

Imagine Robinson Crusoe figuring out on an island that he survives by the use of his mind. That's an Objectivist tenet. He'd be an Objectivist to the extent that he discovered the truths of human existence -- but, because he's out of society, he wouldn't have discovered many of these truths (which would keep his Objectivist level low, even though all his beliefs cohere).

It's not where you're at, it's where you're going that counts.

Ed

p.s. I use the word "belief" above for colloquial reasons. Really good (i.e., high-level) Objectivists work to avoid having mere beliefs in things -- because of the inherent pitfalls associated with giving something your mental consent on merely a gamble or gut feeling. It's how all of the evil is done on Earth (through believing rather than knowing).


Post 11

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 1:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
what's my level Ed?

Post 12

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 2:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ho, ho, ho - wondered who'd be the first to ask...ROFL...

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 3:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Objectivism already has this false public perception of it being a cult. Let's not exacerbate that perception by talking about 'levels'. Sounds too much like Scientology. :)

Post 14

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 5:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt,

Estimation of someone else's Objectivist-level is a difficult task. I'm working on a quiz comprehensive enough to do this well. Until my quiz is completed, I would rather not guess at your level (like believing, good Objectivists don't like to guess if they don't have to -- they prefer knowing to guessing).

======================

John,

You sound like you're full of "thetans." I'd invite you to consider to start saving up a bunch of cash -- so that you can pay for an "audit."

:-)

======================

Ed


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.