Are Objectivists Dogmatic

[Betsy]

If the goal is not to live an "ideal life" then what is the purpose of Rand depicting ideal heroes in her novels?

Here is what Ayn Rand said:

I decided to become a writer—not in order to save the world, nor to serve my fellow men—but for the simple, personal, selfish, egotistical happiness of creating the kind of men and events I could like, respect and admire

The portrayal of a moral ideal, as my ultimate literary goal, as an end in itself—to which any didactic, intellectual or philosophical values contained in a novel are only the means.

Let me stress this: my purpose is not the philosophical enlightenment of my readers... My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark [or the heroes of Atlas Shrugged] as an end in himself...

I write—and read—for the sake of the story... My basic test for any story is: "Would I want to meet these characters and observe these events in real life? Is this story an experience worth living through for its own sake? Is the pleasure of contemplating these characters an end in itself'.."

She said man ought to be a heroic being.

Actually, here's what she did say:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

If you are heroic, you are ideal, yes?  I am just flummoxed when one tries to live their life heroicly, for lack of better words. I don't think it'd be possible without some sort of comparative standard.

Well, of course you're flummoxed. That's not how to do it.

Instead, discover what makes YOU happy, and make YOUR OWN happiness the moral purpose or YOUR life. That's what makes a person heroic, according to Ayn Rand.

[Pericles(MBA)]

I think it was Pericles who made the specific claim that there are dogmatists on this forum. My purpose in asking for names is that I want to make it clear that there is no support for that claim. And I want to make that clear in order to defend this forum, which is one of my values.

This forum is one of my values too. No need to send in the Marines. I was not saying that this forum is run by dogmatists, or that Objectivism is a philosophy for that sort of person. But there are a lot of people on this forum. Do you know them all? Are you prepared to answer for all their past actions and motives? What specifically are you defending against?

I only mentioned I knew of dogmatists (I called them rationalists or randriods) because I was agreeing with Brian that there are some people drawn to the philosophy for the wrong reasons. I don't even know (and I doubt) if his dogmatists are the same dogmatists I had in mind.

Regardless, I don't think listing names will help the discussion.

BTW, I've seen a lot of Objectivists use the term "Randriod" to refer to rationalists. I was not aware it was a term used primarily by subjectivists. Can you provide some published examples?

[danielshrugged]

This forum is one of my values too.  No need to send in the Marines.  I was not saying that this forum is run by dogmatists, or that Objectivism is a philosophy for that sort of person.  But there are a lot of people on this forum.  Do you know them all?  Are you prepared to answer for all their past actions and motives?  What specifically are you defending against?

I only mentioned I knew of dogmatists (I called them rationalists or randriods) because I was agreeing with Brian that there are some people drawn to the philosophy for the wrong reasons.  I don't even know (and I doubt) if his dogmatists are the same dogmatists I had in mind.

Regardless, I don't think listing names will help the discussion.

BTW, I've seen a lot of Objectivists use the term "Randriod" to refer to rationalists.  I was not aware it was a term used primarily by subjectivists.  Can you provide some published examples?

I've never seen an Objectivist use the word Randroid to refer to rationalists. I think it's a bad choice of words for that purpose, since it suggests that the problem with rationalists is that they follow Ayn Rand's philosophy too rigorously.

You can search HPO ( http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&...phy.objectivism ) for the word Randroid. I have read that the word may have been coined by a Libertarian, by the way.

[Betsy]

I've never seen an Objectivist use the word Randroid to refer to rationalists.

I sometimes use the word "randroid" but not to denote a rationalist.

I use it to mean a person who accepts Objectivism on faith without understanding it. As a consequence, he tends to mis-apply Objectivism in a mechanical, out-of-context, android-like way.

[MisterSwig]

[1] This forum is one of my values too.  No need to send in the Marines.  I was not saying that this forum is run by dogmatists, or that Objectivism is a philosophy for that sort of person.

[2] But there are a lot of people on this forum.  Do you know them all?  Are you prepared to answer for all their past actions and motives?  What specifically are you defending against?

1. Objectivism is incompatible with dogmatists. Dogmatists do not understand Objectivism and end up leaving or suffering emotionally. They are fairly quickly exposed by real Objectivists and rejected.

Rationalism is a different issue. People who are rationalistic about Objectivism believe they are being rational. They have made an error in their thinking about the philosophy. This can be corrected with some effort.

But dogmatists take things on faith and generally don't care about reason. They are dishonest.

2. I like how you turned the argument around and are now asking your opponents to prove a negative: that there are no dogmatists on this forum. If you are too chicken to name names, then I suggest you reconsider your original view and stop pestering us with your lame assertions.

The way I see it, your opponents have nothing to defend. You do!

[Brian]

1. Objectivism is incompatible with dogmatists. Dogmatists do not understand Objectivism and end up leaving or suffering emotionally. They are fairly quickly exposed by real Objectivists and rejected.

Rationalism is a different issue. People who are rationalistic about Objectivism believe they are being rational. They have made an error in their thinking about the philosophy. This can be corrected with some effort.

But dogmatists take things on faith and generally don't care about reason. They are dishonest.

2. I like how you turned the argument around and are now asking your opponents to prove a negative: that there are no dogmatists on this forum. If you are too chicken to name names, then I suggest you reconsider your original view and stop pestering us with your lame assertions.

The way I see it, your opponents have nothing to defend. You do!

1. Is it possible for a person to be both a dogmatist and a rationalist pertaining to Objectivism?

2. Also, I do not see what the big deal is about claiming that there are dogmatists on this forum. Altho, I can understand that it may be necessary to prove my claim since after you asked who they were I responded "I don't know!" There are many people on this forum. Young people that are fairly new with Objectivism, ex-marxists that are still trying to figure things out, etc. If it helps, I do not recognize any of the moderators or frequent posters as any of these things. Asking us to go back and search for the dogmatists we are talking about is like asking us to go back into town and find the person that we met at the cafe. If you spend a lot of time on this forum you are probably more aware of people that are not Objectivists more than I am aware of it.

Even I used to be a dogmatist on this forum.

[stephen_speicher]

Objectivism is incompatible with dogmatists. Dogmatists do not understand Objectivism and end up leaving or suffering emotionally. They are fairly quickly exposed by real Objectivists and rejected.

I certainly agree that a dogmatic approach to Objectivism is inconsistent with the philosophy, but I disagree that such dogmatists "are fairly quickly exposed by real Objectivists and rejected," at least as far as the Objectivist community is concerned, as a whole. Though such dogmatic Objectivists are a very small minority of the many more rational Objectivists, nevertheless I have seen them hang around for decades, many not being able to see them for what they are.

If you are too chicken to name names, then I suggest you reconsider your original view and stop pestering us with your lame assertions.

I do not think it is a matter of being "too chicken," but rather that discussions of people, per se, as opposed to ideas, is not what this forum is about. Personally, I think you are making more of what Pericles said than was intended, and pushing him in this direction of "outing" a few he considers dogmatic is itself an escalation of the issue.

[MisterSwig]

Also, I do not see what the big deal is about claiming that there are dogmatists on this forum.

That is not what I had a problem with. Go ahead and say that there are dogmatists at this forum, I don't care.

What I have a problem with is when people make assertions and aren't willing to back them up. If you are going to make a claim like that, then what's wrong with me wanting to know your evidence for such a claim?

In order to know whether someone is a dogmatist when it comes to Objectivism, you would have to know a hell of a lot about that person, unless he comes right out and says, "By the way, I'm a dogmatist."

It is very difficult to identify the rare "Objectivist" dogmatist, because what he is spouting is the truth. It is not like Christianity where the Christian believes in nonsense and comes right out and says, "I believe based on faith." No. The "Objectivist" dogmatist claims to reject faith and embrace reason. You have to really challenge him to get him to slip up. So, I am skeptical of anyone who claims to know of an "Objectivist" dogmatist.

In my experience, the biggest problem Objectivism has is combating rationalism. I actually don't know of anyone who says that Objectivism must be believed because it was written by Ayn Rand. In essence, that is what a dogmatist would have to say.

[Brian]

How does rationalism differ from dogmatism, specifically?

Concerning dogmatism: Let's say a person believes one can only be moral by being exactly like John Galt, because he is the ideal. And let's say this person acts like John Galt in order to be moral but he is not being true to himself. Is this person a dogmatist? This is, basically, what I was referring to. Under these conditions it is very easy to spot someone like this. But maybe I am wrong as to what a dogmatist is -- or perhaps you could be. We need to define our terms.

[MisterSwig]

How does rationalism differ from dogmatism, specifically?

Concerning dogmatism:  Let's say a person believes one can only be moral by being exactly like John Galt, because he is the ideal.  And let's say this person acts like John Galt in order to be moral but he is not being true to himself.  Is this person a dogmatist?  This is, basically, what I was referring to.  Under these conditions it is very easy to spot someone like this.  But maybe I am wrong as to what a dogmatist is -- or perhaps you could be.  We need to define our terms.

Dogmatist: one who believes in a set of beliefs because they were issued by an authority figure or organization.

Rationalist: one who believes in a set of beliefs because they are reasonable.

A rationalist fails to make the connection from his reason to objective reality.

I would guess that anyone who believes he needs to be exactly like John Galt in order to be moral is probably a dogmatist. He is taking the character of John Galt as an authority figure beyond question. Now, if he tries to justify his obsession through some kind of strange reasoning, evading important facts that don't integrate with his reasoning, then he might be a rationalist.

[Areactor]

How does rationalism differ from dogmatism, specifically?

Concerning dogmatism:  Let's say a person believes one can only be moral by being exactly like John Galt, because he is the ideal.  And let's say this person acts like John Galt in order to be moral but he is not being true to himself.  Is this person a dogmatist?  This is, basically, what I was referring to.  Under these conditions it is very easy to spot someone like this.  But maybe I am wrong as to what a dogmatist is -- or perhaps you could be.  We need to define our terms.

I've met two "Objectivist Dogmatist" in my life and they both exhibit what your talking about Brian.

They weren't trying to live their lives but were trying to apply Rand's characters to themselves in order to emotionally benefit from other peoples opinions whether it be from Objectivists or the general population.

More like...

"Carl is so silent and has so much integrity! He reminds me of this character from a book I read in High School. Howard Roark I think!"

What this person didn't know was that Carl has literally spent years building this facade like Peter Keating and Carl merely absorbs some small amount of pleasure from hearing things like this, even if Rand isn't even mentioned.

[Brian]

Areactor: Sadly, that is how I used to act. Was it easy for you to notice that they were dogmatic? I find it quite easy for me to notice such things, but maybe it is because I know how they function quite well, being experienced with it and all.

Edit: And I can imagine that they wouldn't even know that they are harming themselves. At one point, I didn't even realize that I had been acting dogmatically for years and years.

[Areactor]

Areactor:  Sadly, that is how I used to act.  Was it easy for you to notice that they were dogmatic?  I find it quite easy for me to notice such things, but maybe it is because I know how they function quite well, being experienced with it and all.

Edit:  And I can imagine that they wouldn't even know that they are harming themselves.  At one point, I didn't even realize that I had been acting dogmatically for years and years.

Well I first when I met them I was drawn to them because of their Objectivist position mostly because I used to be the person who didn't try to find Objectivist but have them find me, but instead I bumped into these guys.

I've witnessed Dogmatism in many areas, not just Objectivism so my ears always perked up when they made certain uncalled for accusations. They were both light hearted and cold hearted. More like they used Objectivism in order to some how state how much better and enlightened they were. They made certain accusations about certain people when in truth they shouldn't even be concerned about these certain people in the first place. For example, just because a person was well liked and popular, they'd give me a nudge and call them a second hander. That is completely uncalled for! So just listening and paying a attention let me see right through them.

[stephen_speicher]

In order to know whether someone is a dogmatist when it comes to Objectivism, you would have to know a hell of a lot about that person, unless he comes right out and says, "By the way, I'm a dogmatist."

It is very difficult to identify the rare "Objectivist" dogmatist, because what he is spouting is the truth.... So, I am skeptical of anyone who claims to know of an "Objectivist" dogmatist.

But the dogmatist is spouting what he does because he holds it as dogma, not because it is the truth. The obvious thing to do is to ask him why he thinks it to be true. The dogmatist can only go down a certain few levels, ultimately unable to reduce the truth to its perceptual roots. Also, the dogmatist fails terribly in real-world applications of the philosophy, anything beyond the trivially known.

In my experience, the biggest problem Objectivism has is combating rationalism.

With this I agree.

I actually don't know of anyone who says that Objectivism must be believed because it was written by Ayn Rand. In essence, that is what a dogmatist would have to say.

But in practice the dogmatist holds Objectivism as an opinion-- albeit the opinion of Ayn Rand -- not as knowledge. The rationalist fails to reduce his notions to perceptual reality because his notions are not based on perceptual reality, but at least he tries. Ultimately he points to something which is not even real, just felt that way. The dogmatist cannot even get that far, because he does not hold the ideas in a logically connected chain, but rather simply held as dogma. The dogmatist just cannot go far at all with that, but he can still spout out the "Objectivist" answers.