Was My Introduction to Objectivism Distorted?

[lepetitcadien]

I am not an Objectivist, but I was first introduced to Objectivism in college many years ago because my roommate was an Objectivist.  Some of the things he told me about Objectivism appalled me at the time and have influenced my view of Objectivism ever since.  I am now wondering, however, if perhaps this is not unfair -- that is, perhaps my roommate simply did not understand Objectivism very well, and thus did it a disservice in his presentation of it to me.

 

I give you some more salient examples of what I remember about him and his interpretation of Objectivism:

 

My roommate once became very upset with me for listening to Carl Orff's classical work "Carmina Burana" because the poems on which Orff based this work were written by Monks.  Hence, my roommate claimed, the work was contaminated by religion.  It did no good for me to explain to my roommate that the monks in question were not very religious monks, and that most of their poems were about sex, gambling, and drinking.

 

My roommate was fascinated with the painter Vermeer, the only painter he ever discussed.  I later learned about Rand's own fascination with Vermeer.

 

Similarly, my roommate was fascinated with Rachmaninoff, the only classical composer to whom I ever heard him listen.  I later learned about Rand's own fascination with Rachmaninoff.

 

My roommate insisted that opinions do not exist; that only facts exist.  I pointed to a painting in our room, and asked "Suppose I think this is a well executed painting, and you, the Objectivist, do not?  Would that not prove that opinions exist, since we both had our own distinct and contrary opinion of the painting?"  No, he replied, for if we did engage in such a disagreement about the painting in question, and if he as an Objectivist viewed the painting as poorly executed, then it would be a matter of fact that the painting was poorly executed; whereas my contrary view would not only be wrong, it would not even count as an "opinion," because, again, opinion does not exist.

 

If I had to boil down my query here, it would be:  Was my roommate reasonable in his emulation of Rand and in his rejection of anything he viewed as tainted even remotely by religion, and was he reasonable to assert that opinions do not exist?  Or had he merely gone overboard in his admiration of Rand and/or gone astray in his understanding of Objectivism?  And, ultimately, did he misrepresent Objectivism to me in these (admittedly few) examples of his behavior?

[JASKN]

Your roommate was overcome by rationalism, and your approach of considering for yourself while presenting examples was more in line with Objectivism.

 

Are you familiar with Rand's philosophic principles, or is your experience with your roommate your only "toe dip" into her ideas?

[softwareNerd]

Welcome to the forum.

Yes, it does seem you got a wrong impression if those types of issues were primary.

Objectivism rejects religion and any type of faith. However, that does not mean that anything that has a tint of religion is of no value.

This brief write-up will give you a quick summary of Objectivism.

[bluecherry]

Hi there. Thanks for actually looking into possible inaccuracies in what you heard about Objectivism originally. Not many people do that and they often do have wildly inaccurate ideas about what the content of Objectivism actually is. It would sure be nice, even if people still disagreed and held a low assessment of the philosophy and adherents if it, to be treated for what we actually are on a more regular basis.

 

So, in a nut shell, yeah, I think your roommate gave you some info and experiences that are not true to the philosophy.

 

More detailed explanation: I think it sounds like your roommate was probably relatively new to the philosophy at that time. When people are new to it, they're often very inspired and passionate, but don't yet have the greatest grasp of it. The result of this is that they kind of try to mimic attitudes of others, like fictional characters in her stories or Rand herself, for a while because it's fairly easy to get a quick impression of a person compared to how long it takes to really learn a whole philosophy. They often end up misunderstanding these people though since they don't know all the details of what these characters make choices based upon in various situations, so they don't even mimic these people that well. They usually end up with an over-simplified idea of the philosophy and these people and take a lot of single, concrete examples from these people and try to apply them to contexts with substantial, relevant differences. So, basically, what you end up seeing these people do is stuff like declaring a career path change to become an architect like one of the story characters, nigh on exclusively listening/looking at art that Rand herself was known to have liked, and being kind of a condescending jerk that won't loan their friend some lunch money without charging interest.

 

If they stick with the philosophy though until they learn more about it, they get over this stage after a while. We actually have a name for it. We often call it the "I am Howard Roark" phase. (Howard Roark is the main character of one of Rand's novels.) What I find sad though is when they realize they're being ridiculous, but still don't realize their actions were not consistent with Objectivism at all, so they just declare Objectivism sucks and abandon it.

 

To get to some specifics you asked about: Nope, there wasn't some terrible evil about those poems, not on the basis of what your rommate was claiming and what you've said about them in this thread so far at least. There isn't a problem with Vermeer and Rachminoff, but that heavy focus on them to the exclusion of other painters and composers is straight out of what I said above about copying concrete details of other people like Rand and her characters. As for opinions V. facts, not everything is open to opinion of course, but some things will vary from person to person with no written in stone, universally correct answer, like what color is best or what the best tasting food is. You could say though that it's facts about each individual person that give rise to these different valuations among numerous good options.

Edited January 6, 2014 by bluecherry

[Nicky]

The suggestions you're describing are not Objectivist ideas. They're not even philosophical ideas (and Objectivism is philosophy).The only one that seems like it's related to philosophy is that "there are no opinions, only facts". But that isn't an accurate representation of Objectivism either. 

 

Objectivism does hold that "reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true", however, it also holds that "the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second." Perhaps, if your room-mate meant that FOR HIM, his opinion is the truth, because, FOR HIM, his own mind is the ultimate arbiter of truth, then he had a point. However, if he was suggesting that you should accept his conclusions as truth, that's absurd and the opposite of Objectivism.

 

Everything in italics is a direct quote from Ayn Rand's essay “Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?”, from The Objectivist Newsletter. Note that, even here, she is not talking about art (like the paintings in your example). She did also hold that objective standards are possible in art. But that is a subject far too complex to explain on a message board, the above quote certainly doesn't cover it. If you're interested, you can read about it in The Romantic Manifesto. Here's a description of that book: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_the_romantic_manifesto

 

However, I don't think her views on art are anywhere near the top of the list of most important things to learn about Ayn Rand's philosophy. What you should understand first is her Epistemology. Or, even better (especially if you're not particularly excited by the prospect of reading dry non-fiction), get an idea of her overall view of the world, by reading her fictional works, particularly Atlas Shrugged.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Nicky

[Repairman]

lepetitcadien: welcome to the forum. The short answer is: yes, your former roommate misrepresented Objectivism. But then, it's not for everyone. You are very welcome to examine the works of Ayn Rand and judge for yourself.

[tadmjones]

lepetitcadien: welcome to the forum. The short answer is: yes, your former roommate misrepresented Objectivism. But then, it's not for everyone. You are very welcome to examine the works of Ayn Rand and judge for yourself.

[lepetitcadien]

Thank you very much for your replies -- I appreciate it!  And I think I have a better understanding now of my initial experience with an Objectivist.

 

One of you asked, "Are you familiar with Rand's philosophic principles."  I have done some research into her principles, and I agree with her on the primacy of logic and materialism; I don't agree with laissez-faire capitalism, as I support capitalism with government oversight, else I fear corporations might run amok.  I primarily disagree with Rand on the nature of absolute truth.  I don't think we can really know if there is an absolute truth; in fact, I don't think we can ever really know anything for certain.  In short, I'm a skeptic, fearful that the data we receive through our senses may be unknowingly flawed, and thus, how can we ever know anything for certain?  I do believe, however, that on a practical level we must act as though we do know for certain (else we'd never accomplish anything).  

 

The whole "virtue of selfishness" thing sends up red flags with me.  Every time I've heard an Objectivist receive a question about this, they seem to say "Oh, Rand didn't really mean 'selfishness,' she meant 'enlightened self interest'" -- which if true makes me think Rand didn't do herself any favors by titling her book "The Virtue of Selfishness," because the title only fosters misunderstanding.

[tadmjones]

I apologize by me and the quote feature, just dont see eye to I

repairment Your comment seems like an odd sentiment

'

lepetitcadien welcome to the forum , as a suggestion I recommend Ayn Rand's essay 'Philosophy Who Needs It' as an introduction.

[whYNOT]

Thank you very much for your replies -- I appreciate it!  And I think I have a better understanding now of my initial experience with an Objectivist.

  

 

The whole "virtue of selfishness" thing sends up red flags with me.  Every time I've heard an Objectivist receive a question about this, they seem to say "Oh, Rand didn't really mean 'selfishness,' she meant 'enlightened self interest'" -- which if true makes me think Rand didn't do herself any favors by titling her book "The Virtue of Selfishness," because the title only fosters misunderstanding.

Hi. Yes, many semantical discussions about the title. When asked why she had to be so blunt, Rand replied (paraphrasing) that she chose it for the precise reason that people would hate it.

It lays bare people's premises, you see. Why, she's demanding, is it UN-virtuous or a vice, to have "concern for oneself"? By what standards? Who says?

The morality follows - a morality which is concerned primarily with why and how you live your own life and seek your own values.

[Hairnet]

  I don't think that Rand was incorrect to use the term selfishness. When most people use that term it is meaningless. One man I spoke to once told me that he hated Ayn Rand, and when I asked him why, he said that Rand promoted selfishness, and that his brother was a selfish drug addict who ruined his family life. That is a sad story, and it is a bad thing that his brother ruined his own life and hurt his loved one's that way. However i do not think it makes any sense to say that he was selfish. 

 

  There are several important questions to ask about this though. Why is being a drug addict selfish? Is that because he wants to do drugs? Is it selfish because it excludes other peoples values while pursuing his own (no matter what they are)? Finally think about how either of these definitions can not possibly apply to the drug addict brother without applying to almost everyone. Most people do pursue values at the exclusions of other peoples, even altruists, and everyone does what they want to. Those definitions don't work. In our culture it is one of those imprecise and hypocritical insults that other throw at one another.

 

 If you need a term to describe people who are consistently at odds with the good of others, I would say anti-social or misanthropic are better words to use. 

 

 It is important to make sure that words correspond to actual facts. Selfishness can be better understood as promoting what is good for you. We can understand what is good for people on an individual basis.. When you think of the term this way it doesn't just end up being a cheap way to throw mud on people. It becomes very obvious when you put it this way that things like friends, family,  good work ethic, all are good things and help you promote other good things for you. 

 

  I am not saying that you have to use the term selfishness in a different way.  I don't go around correcting people's use of the term.  If I were to say "Honesty is selfish" people would look at me like I am crazy. They think I mean "Honesty is anti-social", which it can be, but usually isn't.  However if I argue that "Honesty is good for you" people may be skeptical but they will understand what I am pointing out.  

Edited January 6, 2014 by Hairnet

[Reidy]

This is to second the points that the others have made and to add a footnote.  Rand never said that only facts exist (although Wittgenstein did, in the Tractatus).  She called herself an Aristotelian, which commits her to saying (as she did) that only entities exist primarily; actions, states, relations, quantities and so on exist only because entities do.  I'd classify opinions as one kind of state and forming them as one kind of action.

 

Methinks your roommate was tacitly endorsing the split, common (though not universal) in philosophy since Hume, between facts and evaluations, the latter supposedly not counting as statements and being beyond fact's grasp.  Rand was a naturalist in ethics; she'd have no objection to saying that statements like "that was a good thing do do" or "that's a bad painting" are, if the speaker has thought them through adequately, statements of fact.

 

Probably most of us in this forum went through the same phase as your roommate.  You are fortunate to have waited until you were an adult before you followed up.  In presenting the theory so badly he (?) did you a favor.

[Repairman]

repairment(sic) Your comment seems like an odd sentiment

'

 

What part seems odd?

Edited January 7, 2014 by Repairman

[softwareNerd]

What part seems odd?

I assume he was referring to this:  "But then, [Objectivism is] not for everyone."

[Eiuol]

I primarily disagree with Rand on the nature of absolute truth.  I don't think we can really know if there is an absolute truth; in fact, I don't think we can ever really know anything for certain.  In short, I'm a skeptic, fearful that the data we receive through our senses may be unknowingly flawed, and thus, how can we ever know anything for certain?  I do believe, however, that on a practical level we must act as though we do know for certain (else we'd never accomplish anything).  

Just to give an idea, Rand didn't really speak of "absolute truth", "contextual certainty" is more what she advocated. For instance, take a jet plane, and some set of facts about that plane which affect flight safety and able to know. Is the pilot sober? Did the airplane pass basic safety tests? Is the weather clear? If you say yes, it's certain that you'll be safe, and you probably have other criteria to determine if it's okay to fly. That isn't to say you know all the details that lead to a crash, or a crash can't happen, but there is no rationale to say anything will go wrong. Years later scientists may discover that some weather conditions the day of that flight make flying a stupid idea. Given what is possible to know, it is possible to say that you are certain in some contexts. So you can be certain a flight is safe. Whatever statistics of frequency show, those only apply to contexts where you know nothing at all, i.e. you know that, say, 1 in 100000 flights crash, but you know literally nothing else about flight crashes.

 

[Repairman]

I assume he was referring to this:  "But then, [Objectivism is] not for everyone."

So, why is this odd? It seems fairly evident that many people reject Objectivism out of hand, because it conflicts with their most profound beliefs. I don't bother with such people, but who can deny their existence?

[Nicky]

Thank you very much for your replies -- I appreciate it!  And I think I have a better understanding now of my initial experience with an Objectivist.

 

One of you asked, "Are you familiar with Rand's philosophic principles."  I have done some research into her principles, and I agree with her on the primacy of logic and materialism; I don't agree with laissez-faire capitalism, as I support capitalism with government oversight, else I fear corporations might run amok.  I primarily disagree with Rand on the nature of absolute truth.  I don't think we can really know if there is an absolute truth; in fact, I don't think we can ever really know anything for certain.  In short, I'm a skeptic, fearful that the data we receive through our senses may be unknowingly flawed, and thus, how can we ever know anything for certain?  I do believe, however, that on a practical level we must act as though we do know for certain (else we'd never accomplish anything).  

 

The whole "virtue of selfishness" thing sends up red flags with me.  Every time I've heard an Objectivist receive a question about this, they seem to say "Oh, Rand didn't really mean 'selfishness,' she meant 'enlightened self interest'" -- which if true makes me think Rand didn't do herself any favors by titling her book "The Virtue of Selfishness," because the title only fosters misunderstanding.

It would've made no difference what the title was. Someone who only read the title would've gained the same exact level of understanding about Objectivism: none. Objectivism (like most things worth understanding) is a little too complex for any title to explain it, even to the slightest extent.

 

Besides, her definition of selfishness isn't wrong. Everyone else's is. Clearly, the more logical way to define "selfish" would be "that which is in one's self interest", rather than "that which satisfies one's momentary whim" or "that which seems to be in one's self interest".

 

But, of course, you would have to first accept the existence of facts, to agree with that definition. If you don't think there's such a thing as truth, then you don't think there's such a thing as "is in one's self interest". Then your only definition of selfishness is a subjective one. But know that Miss Rand's definition isn't that. She did not advocate acting on a whim, and she did not advocate hurting others if it benefits you. If you think she did, you need to read more of her work, and listen to second hand accounts less.

[Nicky]

 

One of you asked, "Are you familiar with Rand's philosophic principles."  I have done some research into her principles, and I agree with her on the primacy of logic and materialism; I don't agree with laissez-faire capitalism, as I support capitalism with government oversight, else I fear corporations might run amok.

As a fellow believer in the primacy of logic, I urge you to evaluate the logical validity of your argument against laissez-faire Capitalism.

 

You say that corporations might run amok. But they haven't. Ever. You propose government as a means of preventing something running amok. But governments have run amok. Many times. Is it logical to suggest a counter-measure that has proven to be worse than the alleged problem?

Edited January 9, 2014 by Nicky

[Skylab72]

As a fellow believer in the primacy of logic, I urge you to evaluate the logical validity of your argument against laissez-faire Capitalism.

 

You say that corporations might run amok. But they haven't. Ever. You propose government as a means of preventing something running amok. But governments have run amok. Many times. Is it logical to suggest a counter-measure that has proven to be worse than the alleged problem?

Wow, you really think corporations have never run amuck? I would suggest that they do it all the time, and the reason they can and do is because governments created them in the first place. Corporatism is NOT laissez-faire capitalism. It is just another group think institution based on a false premise. 

[Skylab72]

lepetitcadien bare with us, Objectivists do have differing opinions. Your concerns about corporations are well founded, the oil industry being an excellent example, but do not assume corporatism as it exists today is actually capitalism much less laissez-faire. It is better described as an oligarchy of competing power groups. Capitalism is an unknown ideal. It has never existed, and is very unlikely to, in our lifetimes. I personally fear corporatism, is doing more damage to the image of capitalism than any of capitalism's real detractors ever have.

[JASKN]

lepetitcadien bare with us, Objectivists do have differing opinions.

Some "Objectivists" like Skylab here also describe themselves as "men of faith," which contradicts all the principles of Objectivism.

[Skylab72]

Say what you will Jaskn, Ms Rand was not a militant atheist, she simply was of the opinion that the world's religions have done immeasurable damage to philosophical thought, an opinion I share. I would describe her position as one of pragmatic atheism. I on the other hand describe myself as a pragmatic theist because Reality is my 'God'. I neither wish to sell the idea to you nor will I indulge in character assassination because you do not share the attitude. I do find it disappointing that a 'Senior Member' would. A mind is like a parachute, it is most useful when it is open.  

[JASKN]

If you consider yourself a "man if faith," how am I assassinating your character by stating that fact?

Rand argued against faith over and over again. If you believe in faith you do not agree with Rand's ideas. Her entire philosophy is based on verifying reality with reason.

[Skylab72]

If you consider yourself a "man if faith," how am I assassinating your character by stating that fact?

Rand argued against faith over and over again. If you believe in faith you do not agree with Rand's ideas. Her entire philosophy is based on verifying reality with reason.

I am sorry but you present a characterization of my views that is inaccurate. I agree Rand's entire philosophy is based on verifying reality with reason. My entire philosophy is based on verifying reality with reason. I do not 'believe in faith' I have faith. I have faith in the scientific method. I have faith in mathematics, the language we use to describe reality. I have faith the 'big picture' of reality is complete, consistent, and ultimately logical. I also believe in the strong anthropomorphic principle, but I approach it with caution. I also have high confidence in my agreement with Rand's ideas. It may not be obvious to you, but over the last fifty some odd years I have read almost everything she ever wrote, and in that process, at no point did I find anything I had any particular disagreement with. The character assassination is claiming my characterization of myself "contradicts all the principles of Objectivism". I find gross generalizations less than useful in civilized discussion, and your "I'm a better Objectivest than you are attitude" specifically counter productive in promoting Ms Rand's IDEAS, which are significantly more numerous and profound than those I have yet found authored by you.  

[JASKN]

All I did is point out how being a "man of faith," is not consistent with Ayn Rand's ideas, which is a true "gross generalization." You could have said, "I don't believe in faith, I believe in reason." Instead you replied with ambiguity, like in the "Men of Faith" thread which I used to based my judgement of your beliefs.

These two statements:

"I on the other hand describe myself as a pragmatic theist because reality is my god."

"I do not believe in faith. I have faith."

suggest either a belief in faith, serious mistakes in held beliefs, or too ambiguous to tell. I'm not going to take the time to go back and quote you from that thread, and I'll take your ambiguity here as more evidence that your ideas are not consistent with Rand's.

Since this is a thread about impressions of Objectivism from a non-Objectivist view, it's appropriate to point out how your views aren't consistent with Objectivism, since you're trying to present yourself as a kind of Objectivist.