Why hasn't Objectivism won already?

[Tom Rexton]

Why is it that many people who have read even both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead still remain unconvinced of the absolutism of reason and are so hostile to those who are? It's so hard to imagine why. I couldn't possibly deny such a cogent argument against irrationality. What could possible be their psychological motivation for rejecting reason?

[DavidV]

I think it's evasion that comes from a powerful, overwhelming fear to use one's mind. I see it in many people, and I can only attribute it to a blind fear of the unknown. I know it because I had the same feeling as a child, when I closed my eyes in fear of the unknown monsters lurking in the dark and pretended that they didn’t exist as long as I was snuggled up under the covers.

At some point during growing up, I dismissed all those monsters and gained confidence in my own mind. However most people do not -- many years later, when my mother refused to walk in the dark because she had just seen a TV special on alien abductions, I saw that same fear of the unknown in her that every mystic and subjectivist hides deep within himself.

[AshRyan]

I agree to some extent with what David said. Also, most people simply don't want the responsibility to have to think for themselves all the time.

After all, thinking is hard.

[Tom Rexton]

Are you being sarcastic, AshRyan?

[AshRyan]

Partially. I do think that thinking does take some effort (actually a great deal), but I don't think that it's as hard as some people make it out to be (and, therefore, put much more effort into avoiding it).

And of course, the issue at stake is life or death. Yeah, thinking may be hard, but so's living...and if you want to live as a human being, you've got to think.

So the fundamental question underlying any decision to think or evade thinking, is: "Do you want to live or not?" All of the evaders are choosing not to live.

Which would all be just fine with me, if they weren't so intent on trying to drag me down with them!

[Tom Rexton]

Thinking does take a lot of concentration and focus and skill, depending on the subject's complexity and level of abstraction. I still can't comprehend why someone would not take the time and effort to think when his whole life depends on it. Is he afraid of alienating others? Of being rejected and even hated by others? The morality of altruism has really got a tight grip on most people.

[Guest DonGalt]

Unfortunately, many people who have read the book and decided they liked it, also refuse to think. They accept "Objectivism" as a religion that requires no thinking, and instead rely on citing Ayn Rand, or Piekoff, or whatever they want (including redefining words to suit their argument) rather than thinking.

The refusal to think is not just a curse of non-objectivists. Its a curse of many objectivists as well.

How often have you seen a disagreement between objectivists that consisted entirely of orgininal arguments, with no appeals ot authority, redefinitions, etc?

I've not seen many. But I cannot fathom how someone can read Atlas Shrugged, decide to be an objectivist, and then refuse to think. But many do- look at the ARI membership.

[kesg]

Why is it that many people who have read even both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead still remain unconvinced of the absolutism of reason and are so hostile to those who are?  It's so hard to imagine why.  I couldn't possibly deny such a cogent argument against irrationality.  What could possible be their psychological motivation for rejecting reason?

Harry Binswanger asked and answered this very question in his lecture series Consciousness as Identification. His answer, in essence, is that these people don't grasp Ayn Rand's objective theory of concepts and therefore never learn to think like Objectivists. They simply want to jump to their areas of immediate interest -- her views on ethics, politics, maybe esthetics -- without taking the time and effort to learn the method of thinking that enabled Rand to arrive at and validate them.

[oldsalt]

Such people make the same mistake with Objectivism as they do with any other philosophy: They want it spoon-fed to them, all the questions answered without the effort required to understand for themselves. This is where the religionists of Objectivism fall. Nothing is understood at the most basic level. This leads to a great deal of rationilization -- something you'll see a lot of in Objectivists. They never learn to reduce their ideas to the facts of reality that underpins the ideas in the first place.

Philosophy can give you the correct premises and the methods, but it will not automatically hand you the answer to the questions which arise in daily life -- which is why you need philosophy in the first place. If you try to follow Objectivism without ever looking at reality first, you may as well be a mystic, a skeptic, a materialist, a post-modernist, or what have you, all of which consist of thinking in floating abstractions, unrelated to the complexities of the real world.

Such "Objectivists" will usually run back to religion at the drop of a life crisis. It is the "What Would Jesus Do" mentality that looks for pat answers to complex questions without the effort to understand the questions, much less the answers.

As for those who read Rand and reject her: I've met people who have an instant, and viceral, hatred of what they read. If this doesn't tell you everything you need to know about such people, I don't know what would. Such people don't merely reject her philosophy, they hate her. I've met many philosphy professors who feel this way. Rand is an affront to them, and her philosophy something to be dismissed out-of-hand. They aren't interested in arguing the merits of her ideas -- I've never met one who could actually argue against them, which is why they simply dismiss them.

It doesn't matter, really. Most people who act this way have already so corrupted their thought processes that they have become unable to reason objectively anyway (which is why their reactions are emotional, not intellectual). Don't bother yourself about them; it will only drive you nuts and waste your time.

[Concerto of Atlantis]

People always find it harder to change than stay the same.

The person that recommended The Fountainhead to me when I had never even heard of Ayn Rand is one of these people. They say things like "Yeah, I agree with the book, but..". Or "Yes, of course the ideas in the book are right, but...". Or "Yeah it all sounds good, but...".

Very disappointing indeed.

[always_learning]

Sounds like my father.

[Betsy]

Why is it that many people who have read even both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead still remain unconvinced of the absolutism of reason and are so hostile to those who are?  It's so hard to imagine why.  I couldn't possibly deny such a cogent argument against irrationality.  What could possible be their psychological motivation for rejecting reason?

ASK THEM.

If you do, you will find out there are many different reasons and they vary from person to person. Some have epistemological problems and can't think straight or in principles. Some lack independence and can't think for themselves. Some are mentally lazy. Some don't want to change.

Others may not be that bad. Some may not really understand what Ayn Rand is advocating. Some agree with her in the important areas like reason and productive careers but have accepted ideas in conflict with their more rational ideas. They may reject Objectivism until and unless they have the time to think those matters through.

People are individuals and there is no "one size fits all" answer to your question. As with all questions, the answers are to be found by looking at reality. If you want to know why somebody does something, ASK him.

[oldsalt]

Well, duh! I feel like an idiot. Of course, Betsy is perfectly right. Obviously so.

I said that sometimes Objectivists are prone to rationalization -- ignoring the fact that every human being is prone to rationalization, myself included. A prime example of that is my answer above. Or perhaps my error here is psychologizing. (Maybe a little of both, one growing out of the other. I'll have to think about it some more.) Whatever it is, it began with a failure to take people as individuals (treating them, instead, as a collective), a failure to begin with what happens in fact, and then leaping to hasty-generalizations about the collective I made up in my own mind. See how easy it is to go galloping off down the wrong track?

What my post reflected was my own past experiences. But I am a shut-in who hasn't really dealt with people for a long time. When one is confined to outside sources, such as the media, for one's input, it is easy to forget what people are really like as individuals. I find that I have fallen into a kind of cynicism.

The internet provides a kind of virtual door for me, a passage to other's like those on this forum. It really is a marvelous thing, isn't it! I feel as though I'm learning to communicate all over again. Thank you to all those who engage in this conversation. You'll never know what it means -- with any luck at all.

I apologize for getting so personal. I promise I'll do better.

[Betsy]

I apologize for getting so personal.  I promise I'll do better.

Oh PLEASE get personal. Otherwise Objectivism is just something to talk about and not a guide to living.

Taking Objectivism personally is the only way to do it right.

[Prometheus]

I have thought about this before too. Most people (atleast those i know of my age) are just mentally lazy. They suffer from the "who gives a @$%! about philosophy" attitude. They think philosophy is something to be comprehended or even sought only when you are 50 or so.

And to many others it's just evasion, they read say the fountainhead and the first thing they see is that, they fit more the description of a peter keating rather than a howard roark and thats just too much for them to come to terms with.

dinesh.

[oldsalt]

Thanks Betsy.

dinesh: I gave a guy I was dating a copy of Atlas Shrugged to read so that he would have some idea where I was coming from. We had a very telling discussion afterward: His take was that, while it was all very interesting, he didn't know any business people who were like Hank Reardon, et al. (It turned out this was his sole "insight" from the book.) He said that Miss Rand's views on business were unrealistic because of these characters. When I pointed out those like Orrin Boyle, he was much more at home. He could not see, however, how that changed his argument. Nothing convinced him that there might be truly honorable and principled people in the world, but rather that the world was made up of "real human beings" like Boyle. It told me everything I needed to know about the guy. If your view is that only Orrin Boyles are possible in this world, you will never aspire to anything greater, and you will be satisfied to remain an Orrin Boyle all of your life.

This is a part of the "I'm only human" rationale some people use to excuse never asking themselves what it means to be a human being. If man if fallible, this reasoning goes, that means that it excuses everything and no one is to blame for what they do. I've never met anyone who didn't pay a damaging psychological toll for thinking this way. I've also noticed that, while many such people may excuse themselves, they don't have a problem pointing an accusatory finger at everyone and everything around them!

[dondigitalia]

Of course, Betsy is perfectly right.  Obviously so.

From what I've seen on here and humanities.philosophy.objectivism, she usually is.

[Capitalism Forever]

I couldn't possibly deny such a cogent argument against irrationality.

(emphasis mine)

An argument is something that presupposes rationality. You may argue against irrationality all you want--the irrational person will remain totally unaffected by your arguments, exactly because he is irrational.

[BlackSabbath]

Why is it that many people who have read even both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead still remain unconvinced of the absolutism of reason and are so hostile to those who are?  It's so hard to imagine why.  I couldn't possibly deny such a cogent argument against irrationality.  What could possible be their psychological motivation for rejecting reason?

A lot of people are scond-handers who let others think for them.

There is one guy at my work who has looked at every page of both Atlas and the Fountainhead and not read a single word.

He lets the church tell him what to think and his team leader tell him what to do at work and, if his political views were realised, the state would tell him what to do.

Another reason is that people fail to check their premises to see if they are false.

Other people when they find out they have been mistaken become resentful and try to "win" rather than correct themselves.

[Randrew]

Have you all ever heard this response to Objectivism?

"It's not that I don't agree with Objectivism. I just find it to be...boring, that's all. Sure, I don't want to be a 'looter' or a 'moocher', so I will vote for whichever political candidate provides the most economic freedom for capitalism, and I'll try not to spread bad philosophy to friends and family. But in my personal life, meditation and spiritual mysticism (e.g. self-mastery and self-knowledge via Buddhism) are practices in which I participate and enjoy, and they don't seem to harm anyone, but actually help me."

Unfortunately (?) I feel this way sometimes. It has been almost a year since I first read Altas Shrugged (and, subsequently, her other novels), and I have gone in and out of phases of feeling that I understand Objectivism and live it completely and disenchantment with the apparent dryness of certain aspects of it.

I think my "discenchanment" stems not from a misunderstanding of Objectivism but from a failure to integrate it into every aspect of my living and my thinking. If I could find an Objectivist psychologist and afford to pay him/her for counseling, then I would be able to discuss in detail specific instances in my life for which Objectivism seems unneccesary to me. But I will stop, for now, lest I run the risk of losing clarity.

[oldsalt]

Randrew:

If all you have read of Ayn Rand is her novels, you do not have a complete understanding of Objectivism. If you think that there are aspects of life where philosophy is unnecessary, you do not have a complete understanding of the nature and purpose of philosophy in general, nor of Objectivism specifically.

Would you please clarify what you mean by "too dry"? What "parts" of Objectivism do you find too dry?

[Betsy]

I think my "discenchanment" stems not from a misunderstanding of Objectivism but from a failure to integrate it into every aspect of my living and my thinking.

It's only been a year since you first read Atlas! I've integrated Objectivism down to my toenails, but it took me eight years to do it. Integrating Objectivism requires a lot of reading, thinking, re-thinking, and learning by doing and that all takes TIME.

If I could find an Objectivist psychologist and afford to pay him/her for counseling, then I would be able to discuss in detail specific instances in my life for which Objectivism seems unneccesary to me.

You can consult one of the best Objectivist therapists for free. Dr. Ellen Kenner has a weekly radio show and she takes and answers questions from her audience. See http://www.drkenner.com

Several Objectivist therapists I know also have therapy groups and the cost is quite low. Many take health insurance. They can also refer you to good therapists at low-cost or no-cost clinics. See Dr. Michael Hurd's web site, http://www.drhurd.com, or read his book, Effective Therapy, for guidance.

[MinorityOfOne]

I've integrated Objectivism down to my toenails, but it took me eight years to do it.

You did pretty well, then. I first picked up Rand about 6 or 7 years ago, and I've still got a lot of work to do.

(More than I would have admitted a couple of years ago.) ;-)

[Betsy]

I first picked up Rand about 6 or 7 years ago, and I've still got a lot of work to do.

(More than I would have admitted a couple of years ago.) ;-)

Take whatever time you need and be fair with yourself.

We all begin at different starting points and have different issues. Instead of being discouraged by how far you still have to go, measure your progress by how far you've come.

[Randrew]

“ ‘Look, Gail.’ Roark got up, reached out, tore a thick branch off a tree, held it in both hands, one first closed at each end; then, his wrists and knuckles tensed against the resistance, he bent the branch slowly into an arc. ‘Now I can make what I want of it: a bow, a spear, a cane, a railing. That’s the meaning of life.’

‘Your strength?’

‘Your work.’ He tossed the branch aside. ‘The material the earth offers you and what you make of it…’” (Fountainhead, 551.)

And this, my friends, is the meaning of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Beautiful, isn’t it? The courage and inspiration one gets from watching Roark perform a few such simple actions is enough to laugh away angry and hopeless words from centuries of snarling philosophers and religious leaders.

Indeed, I do love my work. Mathematics is among the most beautiful of academic disciplines, and there is always more to learn, always more to create. But I am not a Gail Wynand or a Paul Erdos: I cannot put in twenty-hour days doing my work. I need something more, and I cannot figure out what that is.

A few examples of my confusion about Objectivism:

1) I like David Lynch movies. But why? They are dark, irrational, and seemingly full of a postmodern sickness. Yet there is something magical, fantastic, about them: you never know what sort of quirky strangeness will happen next. I could also name some examples of books and music that I still enjoy after having studied Objectivism (and yes, oldsalt, I have read more than just the novels. I’ve read most of PWNI and VOS, some of Peikoff’s Objectivism (incidentally, a boring book—thank god for the novels), and some of Capitalism), but let it suffice to say that my inspiration from reading Ayn Rand has in no way altered my taste in art.

2) The Objectivist view on romantic love. Recall the words of Francisco, spoken to Rearden:

“The man who is proudly certain of his own value will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement.” (Atlas, 1st ed. softcover, p. 460.)

First of all, I have enough trouble as it is just finding women who are inspired by Rand and live, or at least want to live, the philosophy in their lives. Second, although these women do exist, that makes for a very small playing field for us men, which leaves us with two options: remain proudly single, or compromise. And, as Galt tells us, “in any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that wins.” What, specifically, influences my desire to compromise?

1 – I want to have children, and I don’t want to do it alone.

2 – I want to have sex, and I don’t want to do it alone. ;-)

Furthermore, I don’t even completely agree with Francisco. There is something aesthetic about romantic experiences, from the first date through all of the courtship and lovemaking, and, as I said in 1), I am still just as confused as ever about my aesthetic tastes. That is, I am still attracted to many women who do not quite fit the bill of Francisco’s description, and I have a hard time understanding how it is that fixing my “bad philosophy” will suddenly make me attracted to “higher” women.

3) I still find inspiration from Nietzsche’s idea of the “Eternal Recurrence” (see Gay Science, #341, for an explanation.)

Before I end, I will re-formulate my original statement, only with qualifications:

1) I have been greatly inspired by the characters in Rand’s novels as living examples of ideal human beings.

2) In the realm of the real world, I have great respect for anyone who honestly lives the philosophy and has managed to integrate it into every aspect of his psychology and self-understanding. Also, I commend the Objectivist movement for its fight for Capitalism and the individual rights necessary for Capitalism.

3) That said, I still find the philosophy boring (i.e., lacking) on aesthetic, romantic, and, to an extent, philosophical grounds.