Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Isn't it too late to save the world?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Ah yes, Brandon's the granddaddy of all exploiters of Objectivism! A bum in a suit who confers the snake-oil of self-esteem upon his listeners like a priest offering absolution. The man who took the "I" of Ayn Rand and turned into the ME! ME! ME! of self-absorbed intellectual retards.

I guess I've met all the categories after all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self-esteem is a central tenet of Objectivist ethics. When Brandon talks about self-esteem, however, he offers it as a snake-oil palative for virtually all psychological problems. He didn't start out doing this, but his theories were such that he ended up doing so. I didn't mean to say that self-esteem itself is snake oil. Consider how that term is used these days, the way people talk about "giving" somebody self-esteem, and you'll know what I'm talking about. You are right when you say that it is the reward for living a principled life. It certainly isn't something that can be given by somebody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy's Guide to Ex-Objectivists (copyright 2002 Betsy Speicher)

Wow, that was great reading, Betsy.

(or maybe I'm just glad that I didn't find myself in any of the categories :D )

As of the subject of the thread:

Out here I'm quite a lone objectivist. There's noone here who at least heard of Ayn Rand. I've never had a lecture given by an objectivist. All I know about Objectivism is what I've remembered reading Ayn Rand's books. And I don't know what you people complain about there being no hope for the triumph of "good". The things I hear from people around me, even my own friends, or on the news from my country or from Europe, although they do make me sick, never actually have any effect on my goals and what I'm trying to acchieve for myself (perhaps only how I'm going to do it). There certainly were times when I was so angered by something that I thought the world was doomed, but when I found time and will to think about it I realized that it wasn't necessarily so. The evil will get burned by reality sooner or later and I won't hesitate if I had the chance to make it happen sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out here I'm quite a lone objectivist. There's noone here who at least heard of Ayn Rand. I've never had a lecture given by an objectivist. All I know about Objectivism is what I've remembered reading Ayn Rand's books.

Where do you live? I know Objectivists all over the world and love to arrange introductions.

And I don't know what you people complain about there being no hope for the triumph of "good". The things I hear from people around me, even my own friends, or on the news from my country or from Europe, although they do make me sick, never actually have any effect on my goals and what I'm trying to achieve for myself (perhaps only how I'm going to do it).
That's because, as long as you live in a semi-free country, the quality of your life most depends on the choices you make for yourself: your chosen career, friends, and romantic partner. That's where you spend your time and invest and seek values. Ayn Rand was right when she said, "He who fights for the future, lives in it today."

Whether or not other people do the right thing affects THEIR lives more than it does ours.

There certainly were times when I was so angered by something that I thought the world was doomed, but when I found time and will to think about it I realized that it wasn't necessarily so. The evil will get burned by reality sooner or later and I won't hesitate if I had the chance to make it happen sooner

Reality is a great ally -- on OUR side. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed., the "you" I use in this post is generic. It is not meant to apply to anyone in specific.

My two cents.

I am someone who enjoys engaging with you all and learning about Objectivism. I share at least some of your commitments--that is, in the most general terms, a commitment to advancing rationality and productive behavior. I have only a cursory exposure to Ayn Rand through some of my friends and the essays I've started to read. I can't say I like her style of writing and engaging opponents, but ultimately it's irrelevant, because it is the ideas that matter.

That said, I think the idea that's its 997 against 3 is counter-productive. It makes the 997 out to be a group with undifferentiated interests and commitments. For example, putting it in those terms would assimilate an influential left-wing economist like Amartya K. Sen to Karl Marx. Assimilating the two is counter-productive, because Sen makes a lot of points that counter simplistic and common place academic thinking about redistributive economics and "social justice." He (and his wife) also have a lot of interesting things to say about Adam Smith. If his Adam Smith is not your Adam Smith, then at least you share Adam Smith in common, and you have a point of common contact to turn him around to a better way of thinking about Adam Smith.

So, when you say, for example:

It's amazing that we now have that capitalism program! Now if they'd only set up another one at Harvard...

I would say this in resposne: Amartya Sen is at Harvard! Go talk to him, convert him. He has a Nobel Prize. Academia listens when he speaks. He's a good place to start. Not everything you think about Harvad is true, just because it has spawned hopeless do-gooders.

Robert Nozick, while not an Objectivist, was extremely influenced by Ayn Rand's writings. He turned around a lot of people at Harvard, and his way of thinking forced them to at least reconsider their first instincts about the role of government, our responsibilities to other people, and all the rest. I know this, because I was one of those people. I am very thankful I took a class with Nozick before he passed away a couple years ago. It turned me on to academic philosophy, which I had previously considered pointless mental masturbation. He even got John Rawls, an evil Kantian :) , to turn around and accept revision on a few matters of principle (it should be noted that Rawls also turned Nozick around on a few things).

Finally, saying that no changes in moral philosophy have been made in the last 50 years needs some context. I'm not sure that is a useful conclusion to make about academia, but it certainly does not apply to the culture at large. The Reagan revolution would have been unthinkable (though not metaphysically impossible :) )when Ayn Rand started writing. As a percentage of GDP, the size of the federal government is the smallest it has been since L.B.J. instituted the Great Society programs in the 60s (after Bush's tax cuts, I think we are down to around 19%). The economy keeps growing, as does scientific knowledge (though I'll admit that the influence of the Christian right on public policy here is getting alarming). I don't see why you would think "evil" is growing, at least across the board. I think the most alarming trends are in popular mass culture and the numbing effect it is having on people's minds, but I am not sure what the Randian response to that is in principle.

There is also good news in psychology. A widely influential and scientifically sound trend is Martin Seligman's "Positive Psychology" movement http://www.positivepsychology.org/. It may not be the psychology of self-esteem, but it is a lot better than treating humans like zombies that need to be cured of their restless humanity.

The point of this sermon is just that there is no reason to take an embattled stance that says, "It is Objectivists against the world, unite!" The world will listen, if you do not try to shut out the world in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people are sincerely interested in how or why someone would become an "ex-Objectivist," I think this person gives a good account: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/ooPreface.html . You could dispute that he ever was a real Objectivist to begin with, but then the distinction "ex-Objectivist" would become meaningless in practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people are sincerely interested in how or why someone would become an "ex-Objectivist," I think this person gives a good account: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/ooPreface.html .  You could dispute that he ever was a real Objectivist to begin with, but then the distinction "ex-Objectivist" would become meaningless in practice.

I read it. His main point is citing someone who totally misses Ayn Rand's argument for her central moral premise: "It is only the concept of "life" which makes the concept of "value" possible."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you live?  I know Objectivists all over the world and love to arrange introductions.
I live in Croatia. That's almost nowhere, but if you know any objectivists that live somewhere nearby, I'd be delighted to meet them.
That's because, as long as you live in a semi-free country, the quality of your life most depends on the choices you make for yourself: your chosen career, friends, and romantic partner.
In a semi-free country perhaps. But I don't know whether Croatia would qualify as such. The government here still dares to steal away 6 or so months from my life, of the most productive years of my life, to train me for the army. Personally, I have no interests to defend my country from any invaders whatsoever. In fact, they'd just give me reasons to leave. As it is, I can't leave. I don't have a career yet (I'm a student), meaning I don't have money and I live with my parents (and, oh, they say they were happier when they were under communist government). And just when I finish college, I'll get drafted instead of being left alone to start turning my knowlege into some tangible value. I just want to get it over with and live my life; MY life.
Ayn Rand was right when she said, "He who fights for the future, lives in it today."
Which is why I opened my site. Frankly, I'm astonished about what a small number of objectivists write about individual rights. I don't know what it's like in the US, but from what I hear on the news, it is a catastrophe - politicians and non-politicians alike don't care about how many rights they violate and to how many people. I wondered why isn't there a site like mine, or a book about it already? Yes, there's Ayn Rand's essays, there's Leonard Peikoff's essays and essays from other people as well, but they concentrate on too small an area of this huge concept.

I have to go now, but I'll continue this post tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy: That was very well put. I'm still pretty young, and most objectivists I know are also quite young, so I've known quite a few lost lambs and rebels, although so far no exploiters.

I'm not a lone objectivists, I've got my father and a few friends, but sometimes I do lose hope all the same. I know, rationally, that there will always be a contingent of individuals in the world who are individuals though, which is a comfort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm back now. I was using a computer at college yesterday and I had to go when I was half done with the posting.

Anyway, what I wanted to say in that last paragraph I wrote is that even though so many objectivists have written about individual rights, the whole concept is vague and not clearly defined. And I hold that it is one of the most important and fundamental things an individual can have. It begins with the words "Right to Life." Can it be any more fundamental?

And yet, we have to deal with that UN declaration of '48. which begins with a claim that we should all be (like) brothers (act in a spirit of brotherhood).

I am convinced that individual rights are more than just word on paper put together by socialist politicians. I believe they are a concept in which, like in any other concept, one right follows from a right more fundamental than that one, which in turn follows from a more fundamental one, and so all the way down to property rights and right to life - and that right is a consequence of fundamentals set forth by Ayn Rand throughout her works.

Anyway, I don't want to get too far off topic by explaining my understanding of the concept. What I want to stress is that in reply to Ayn Rand's "He who fights for the future, lives in it today," I hold that fight for the future begins with the fight for one's rights - all of them, as they will, hopefully, be set forth by myself (and hopefully a number of other objectivists) on my site and one day in book form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most important fight is the fight for the supremacy of reason. The fight for individual rights cannot be won on any other basis.

Anyway, what I wanted to say in that last paragraph I wrote is that even though so many objectivists have written about individual rights, the whole concept is vague and not clearly defined.

Not so! Rand provides a very clear explanation of the concept of individual rights in the article titled "Man's Rights" in the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most important fight is the fight for the supremacy of reason. The fight for individual rights cannot be won on any other basis.
Supremacy of reason? How do you fight that battle? Who and/or what do you fight it against? If you think of making the unreasonable reasonable, then you've already lost. You're playing the "convert to my beliefs" game and there's no way you can get someone to turn to reason by doing so. The only way reason can become supreme is by it finally being implemented by the reasonable.
Not so! Rand provides a very clear explanation of the concept of individual rights in the article titled "Man's Rights" in the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
How many rights does the essay mention? Three, perhaps four. It is only an introduction, the basics of the basics. Knowing that you have the right to life and the right to your property and the right to pursuit of happiness isn't enough. Did you know that on my site, at this moment, there is eleven individual rights listed, most of them defined properly, several vaguely (which is why I call my site a research site), and all of them are rights to action (not to being acted upon)? And still I expect the list to grow. Rights, although they have different names, are all parts of a single concept. For one of them to be possible to practice, all of them must be possible. To move you have to have the right to life and the right to movement; say you don't have the right to movement but it is claimed you have the right to life. This is impossible because if you don't have the right to move, it is not your life - therefore, you don't have the right to life either. Now let's assume that you don't have the right to life, but have the right to movement - that's also impossible, because you can't move around dead. Ayn Rand, although she gave basis from which this follows, never said this. Every time, therefore, when your rights are violated, you have to build concepts from the fundamentals she has given and check whether what some person claims is true or not. And then it is only your experience - someone else will have to rebuild that concept. The purpose of science (and philosophy is science), is to build concepts not because others wouldn't have to, but because research can move on and build greater concepts, and because when this is done, there is less margin for error. But the concept must be complete and clearly defined. Can you define right to privacy? Do you know why an individual has that right? Would you know how to tell when it has been directly violated? It would take some time for you to answer that, building the concepts from scratch, or from what Ayn Rand wrote in Man's Rights. But if they were already defined and explained, all you'd have to do is read it (and/or learn it) and you'd know (speaking ideally). As it is, they are not.

Finally, Ayn Rand has given, among many other things, the tool for concept-building. Why do you avoid building concepts on her fundamentals, namely, why do you (or why would you) avoid building in its entirety a concept of individual rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sherlock Holmes, the great fictional detective, used to say that being overly modest is a distortion of reality just as being overly arrogant.

Taking the same form, I will say that being an all out pessimist is a distortion of reality just as being an all out optimist.

In either case you would have to ignore and evade the huge amount of evidence to the contrary.

As for Betsy's post: it strikes me as generally true, but the reality of judging an individual is more complicated than simply identifying to which group he belongs.

After all - the Rebel doesn't use Objectivism solely to attack the establishment. He must at least pay lip service the the positive ideas of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

The Lost Lamb has to accept some criticism, or they would never become Objectivists in the firs place.

The True Believer, while attacking the enemies of Objectivism, does not justify it by saying "this is what the Great Leader have said", but by reference to principles - at least most of the time or he would be immediately detected.

The Exploiter, while perhaps trying to make his money and fame through Objectivist channels (which is not, in itself, immoral - if you are honest about it) - must become familiar with the philosophy, the people - and he seems to agree with Objectivism, for as long as he makes his profit.

So I guess my question to Betsy is - what are the clues to help you identify these cases BEFORE they blow up in your face? :D

Note that with all the cases you gave the actual action they are taking is LEGITIMATE. What is not legitimate are their REASONS.

I.e. - you can be a rebel, but only in the name of a positive cause.

You can want to belong to a group of people who share you beliefs, but only if you first have beliefs, then look for the people - not first look for people and THEN embrace whatever beliefs they might hold.

You can morally be a staunch defender of your ideas, but only if you reached them through reason and conviction, not through blind faith in some authority.

You can morally want to use your knowledge and familiarity with a certain group in order to sell them products and make a profit (what is CyberNet or HBL?) - but only if you don't fake and hide your own ideas and character to do so.

So what these people are actually guilty of is putting a certain value (money, friends, rebelion, creed) above reason, truth, and honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

The EXPLOITERS sound very odd. Do some people actually try to make living by pretending to cater to Objectivists in the Costa Rican jungle? EXPLOITER X : "Let's create a want-to-be Galt's Gulch. All the wealthy Objectivists will come flocking and we'll be rich!" It's strange that the motive in this case--profit--is highly consistent with Objectivism, but the reason, as one of you said, is definitely way off base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Ah yes, Brandon's the granddaddy of all exploiters of Objectivism!  A bum in a suit who confers the snake-oil of self-esteem upon his listeners like a priest offering absolution.  The man who took the "I" of Ayn Rand and turned into the ME! ME! ME! of self-absorbed intellectual retards. 

I guess I've met all the categories after all!

XD Are you looking down at a man who's married so many beautiful women?

I read it.  His main point is citing someone who totally misses Ayn Rand's argument for her central moral premise: "It is only the concept of "life" which makes the concept of "value" possible."

Exactly as I thought, but I didn't read all of it. It was too wordy and irrelevent, and he didn't really have anything to say. This seems to be a common pattern amongst the criticisms I've read online: missing important knowledge of Objectivism and emotional/irrelevent details. =/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...