Does O'ism deny man's social nature?

[Melissa]

I've read At. Shrugged, the Fountainhead, Anthem, We t. Living, and VoS.

I get the feeling that one of the premises Objectivism is based on is that humans don't NEED interaction with other humans. I can't think of if this is stated anywhere or not, it just seems to me that this is a foundation.

Humans can't survive (very well) without social interaction. The independence of Dagny, Hank, Roark, etc. is all well and good... actually that's a bad example, forget that. I'm trying to put my finger on something here- there IS a difference between the Socialist social-interaction or the thought that ALL WE ARE is a creation of our social interactions, and the sort of social interaction that Rand models in her stories with her hero characters. Physically cared for babies will die without social care ( a.k.a. "failure to thrive"), and most humans do need some sort of social group to be happy (even one close friend, or one spouse in a happy marriage). We DO change depending on the situation, some more than others, but the man like Roark, precisely the same in every situation, does not exist. Social forces can result in dramatic changes to a person's behavior.

I'm not talking about trading goods and services. I'm talking about just human social exchanges.

I have read some, but obviously not everything. Have I missed something?

[ex_banana-eater]

I get the feeling that one of the premises Objectivism is based on is that humans don't NEED interaction with other humans. I can't think of if this is stated anywhere or not, it just seems to me that this is a foundation.

I do not think this is a foundation or premise of Objectivism in the least.

In the novels you've read, did you notice the immense satisfaction that the heroes gained from positive relationships with eachother?

[BurgessLau]

I have read some, but obviously not everything.  Have I missed something?

Yes, you have missed the point of the philosophy: To be a guide in living our lives, particularly in society -- which simultaneously offers great benefits and great dangers.

The novels and other writings of Ayn Rand show clearly the enormous satisfaction that rational people gain from trading values with each other. Those values can be economic or spiritual. Take an example: the loving relationship between Howard Roark and Henry Cameron.

To say that Howard Roark is precisely the same in all situations is false. In the first place he grew intellectually in his understanding of altruism and independence. Growth is change. He changed from interacting with others and then thinking about it. He experienced a wide range of emotions in interacting with Dominique, Peter Keating, Mike, and Gail Wynand.

Roark's social life was immensely rich. Review the descriptions of the friendships he formed, and their meetings, particularly in the work shack on the site of the Stoddard Temple.

Is your own social life as satisfying as Howard Roark's?

If so, tell us about it. If not, what is the problem?

[drewfactor]

It's not that humans don't "need" social interaction, it is that individuals are not the means to the ends of others - in other words, to the undefinable and vague concept that is society. The individual is the primary, the free interaction and trading among individuals that constitutes society is the consequence. Key term here is freedom, namely individual freedom.

[Capitalism Forever]

I get the feeling that one of the premises Objectivism is based on is that humans don't NEED interaction with other humans.  I can't think of if this is stated anywhere or not, it just seems to me that this is a foundation.

I think you should read ITOE too...

[carriew7]

Yes, there is a difference. Allow me to illustrate from my personal experience.

Before Objectivism, I had a peculiar "need" to be with someone, I felt anxious and confused if I didn't have anything to do. I externalized myself so much (focussed on other people) that I never listened to my own wants, needs, thoughts and desires. Just a constant pressure of what other people were thinking.

Now, after Objectivism, I absolutely LOVE and cherish my alone time. As I've gained my independence, I feel like a solid person with a very rich personality with many facets. I find that the kind of value people now give me is reaffirmation of my values.

I learn from them, I get a certain type of uplifting energy when I spend time with my loved ones.

I am a very social creature, I love people!! They're great! But, the important thing, is now there are ME and THEM.

Not just them.

[Cole]

Objectivism is not premised by the idea that humans do not need social interaction. Objectivism is premised on metaphysical axioms. Perhaps you're confusing the rejection of altruism with the rejection of social interaction. Or perhaps you're getting thrown off by the notion that all human relationships, at their root causes, are similar to business trades. In reality, Objectivism holds that the increased productivity which division of labor allows is virtuous.

[Tom Robinson]

In addition to the responses already posted, I should point out that Rand was a tireless advocate of capitalism. Among other things, capitalism implies trade among individuals, the division of labor, and satisfying consumer demand -- all of which are possible only in the context of social interaction.

[softwareNerd]

I get the feeling that one of the premises Objectivism is based on is that humans don't NEED interaction with other humans. 

This is a common misconception about Objectivism. (Another common misconception would be: "Objectivism recommends the repression of emotions".) On this, I cannot add much to what earlier posters have said.

I can't think of if this is stated anywhere or not, it just seems to me that this is a foundation.

In light of the examples that Burgess offered in his post, you'll see that Roark did have friends. Here's something to chew on: is Peter Keating more sociable than Roark? How? Is there is difference in the way they make friends? Which one of them has the more solid and enriching friendships?

[Melissa]

Yep yep. I see what you are all saying. I did note the relationships that the hero characters formed, however they were singularly immune to social influences of others... which may be the point (see the next paragraph).

Here is a related question: To what extent is an individual solely responsible for his / her actions? Are the 90% of us who change (dramatically) our behavior when presented with high-pressure social situations intrinsically bad / weak / evil? Are the hero characters of these stories intended to reflect the small minority of people who have (somehow) the ability to do the Right thing regardless of pressure?

Capt. Forever: What is ITOE? I used "feeling" and "it seems to me" because I was genuinely unsure of what I was asking, and had nothing to back it up.

Burgess, my social life is sparse but satisfying. Thanks for asking.

[softwareNerd]

Are the 90% of us who change (dramatically) our behavior when presented with high-pressure social situations intrinsically bad / weak / evil?

Not sure what you mean, Melissa.

I suggest that you present an example of a "high pressure social situation" that you have encountered personally in which you changed your behaviour dramatically. That could be a starting point.

[Cole]

To what extent is an individual solely responsible for his / her actions?

Entirely, to the extent that volition is involved.

[Melissa]

Not sure what you mean, Melissa.

I suggest that you present an example of a "high pressure social situation" that you have encountered personally in which you changed your behaviour dramatically. That could be a starting point.

In any social situation, other people have influence on an individual's behavior (even on their thoughts). The only ethically accepted way to study this anymore is something like the following: Five people are in a room, only one is a real participant, the real participant thinks that the other four are also participants. Show an obviously green slide, have the four call it blue, and see whether the participant calls it blue as well.

The extraordinary situation I have in mind right now is the series of experiments done by Stanley Milgram following WW2, when there was some concern that the "evil" Nazis seemed to be regular people when brought to trial. Here is a breif summary of the original experiment: http://www.cba.uri.edu/Faculty/dellabitta/...nks/Milgram.htm

Basically, the participant, if completing the experiment, was made to believe they were electrocuting a nice old man to death (they couldn't see him, but they could hear him screaming... a tape recording of an actor). This was done at a college, and the number of people who did follow through the whole thing blew people away. Milgram took the experiment out to a community, and by changing around experiment conditions (amount of social pressure, "shocked" person was in or outside the room, social modeling, etc) he was able to bring compliance (finishing the experiment) to as high as 90%.

Various studies of compliance have been done since then, though ethics are a lot tighter anymore. But in real-world situations, as close to home as mobs ("Mob mentality), the recent Abu Garhib situation, this sort of thing, people who are normally "good" become evildoers.

So that is what I meant by high-pressure social situations. In Objectivism, does it basically come down to individual responsibility regardless of the situation? Are the heroes of the stories intentionally representing the handful of people who are able to keep their heads on straight, so to speak? Is this the whole point?

Cole, you said: Entirely, to the extent that volition is involved.

I am not sure I understand what that means. Could you say it in a different way?

[FaSheezy]

I will venture to say that Cole meant something akin to, --To the extent to which you have a choice about your actions, you are entirely responsible for what you do.-- In other words, if you can choose between right and wrong then you are solely responsible for that choice.

So what you posited, Melissa, was just peer pressure. Like when your friends are all dropping acid and telling you, "Do it man, do it!" People in those situations were entirely responsible for their actions, and to give them any leeway because "everyone else was doing it" is completely wrong. If I am in a room looking at a green screen and everyone else calls it blue, then I will call it GREEN, because that is what I see. The point is that you use your own mind to reason about a situation and derive your own conclusions about what to do. But you have to remain context bound, if in experiments people were not presented with all the facts or were misled in some way, then that would influence their decisions, but pure peer pressure should not be a factor in the decision making process.