RandNotAyn

Ayn Rand is a genius - at marketing. For several years I've contended that, *practically speaking*, Objectivism is a re-branding of Existentialism (and the same applies to every transformational thinking 'movement' out there including Dr. Phil, Tony Robbins, etc.... and by the way David Allen too... the new GTD is very much grounded in existentialism.) Only last week, Oct 2011, had I actually read the wikipedia entry for Objectivism and was simply blown away --- "Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence—"existentialism"—had already been taken." (refers to Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton.; page 18) I will try to explain. She's simply casting what others call 'god'. She is saying that objective reality (what defines everything) is beyond perception... same practical definition of god. And also moot...if something is beyond perception than it, by definition, plays no role in the our 'real' domain. Something meta-physical is the same as a belief - it can't be perceived. She asserts that reality exists *independent* of an perceiver's consciousness. This means that: (a) what we know can only be grounded in perception ( that we can't ever know if perception is 'ultimate reality'* (*The claim that reality is outside perception is also a perception. To not choose is to also choose, thank you Neil Peart.) Therefore what is real is actually not 'Objective' in the ultimate sense but only so through agreement. If you have an opinion, it's subjective. If others share the opinion it's not so objective and becomes more factual - Babe Ruth was the greatest. If a process is established whereby everyone can apply the rules that everyone also agrees upon (the scientific method) we can state facts. Well that's existentialism - everything is subjective and it's only the degree of agreement that objectifies something. The agreements we have about agreements are what we can Conventional. Tree falls in the forest, no one there, does it make a sound? Well conventionally yes, cause we know trees make a sound when falling. But existentially no, cause until it's perceived it didn't happen. Well, you say, but the tree doesn't exist in existential so who cares? Well that's right, but what's critically important is that you get that the assessment of reality is just arbitrary, why? Because there a major real-world payoff to choosing to perceive things in the existential side of the coin - removing suffering. Human suffering, personal or macro, are about shoulds that don't occur. There should be a way to get all the energy we need...we should be able to reform Wall Street, the Phillies should've won, I should be better at losing weight, etc. All problems are created in the conventional...but they are all solved in the existential because when you say 'does it REALLY mean anything?' the answer is no - it's our conventions that cause the meaning. This is why transformational thinking, and therapy, is pretty much about exposing the underlying should's (irrational beliefs) that cause us conventional suffering - being a victim of others' conventional actions. The expression 'get over it' or 'give it up' means to stop dwelling in the conventional shoulds and practice applying the existential filter to everything. Stated another way, convention causes suffering because there is uncertainty. But existentially everything is certain - 'perfect' - as it is, is exactly how it should be, cause it shouldn't be anything else. If you don't make something mean something it really isn't then you won't suffer. Conventionally, 2+2=3 is wrong. Existentially that statement is just fine, perfect, cause it's just a bunch of glphys, no meaning. I think Objectivism is a (fantastic) re-languaging of existentialism and as such it can liberate anyone who wants to take on the mental 'de-referencing' that choosing to re-perceive select things in an existential light can offer.