Are Objectivists Dogmatic

[Brian]

To me, it seems there are many people who are dogmatic in their aproach to Objectivism. How many of you wish you could meet Howard Roark and John Galt? How many here believe HR and JG are better than you are? Who here is looking to be exactly like them? I can just imagine John Galt walking into a room and I can see many Objectivists subordinating themselves to him. Also, I've noticed people with a lack of self-confidence are attracted to O'ism in order to gain confidence...but in actuality, it is the mere opposite. Kind of like when you are dogmatic in Objectivism you are imitating trying not to imitate anyone - which is really hard. And that is how I have lived most of life up until the the 16th year of it. Perhaps, if this topic lengthens, the details could be discussed. Although I am no longer barred within the chains of dogmatism, I still am hoping to have these issues cleared up - for myself and others. I have dealt with it in the past, and I am seeing people still dealing with it. Is anyone knowleadgable on this subject?

[danielshrugged]

You're hanging around the wrong Objectivists.

[Pericles(MBA)]

Brian wrote-

Is anyone knowleadgable on this subject?

It depends on what you want to know. Way back when (about 10 years ago) I struggled with similar things. I've also met my share of dogmatic objectivists (rationalists/randriods), call them what you will. There are even a few that post on this message board.

Why do you ask this question? Do you think you are still struggling with it yourself? Or are you just concerned about meeting the better Objectivists that have high self-esteem and avoiding the randriods?

Also, I've noticed people with a lack of self-confidence are attracted to O'ism in order to gain confidence...but in actuality, it is the mere opposite.

That's a good observation, if you are saying that they don't gain confidence, just an illusion of confidence. If they keep trying they might overcome it and become interesting people. Others continue on using Objectivism to fight their own internal conflicts.

And that is how I have lived most of life up until the the 16th year of it.

Sorry to hear that, but you are still young and have a lot to look forward to.

I saw another post you did on mental illness, and would add my reply here because it is related. I would suggest that maybe you don't have as many mental health problems as you think, but just need to get a good sense of what mental health means to you, and then find a good therapist who can help you attain that.

Some people who come from dysfunctional parents just need to meet a few sane people outside their family to get a compass on what direction they want to go in life. Maybe that applies to you.

I wish you luck.

No charges for today's session.

[Brian]

Why do you ask this question? Do you think you are still struggling with it yourself?  Or are you just concerned about meeting the better Objectivists that have high self-esteem and avoiding the randriods?

I have mostly overcome the problem, but there are times when it will last a few days at a time, and I think that is a problem. Again, I've lived like this most of my life so I can imagine it takes a long time to getting used to. One of the consequences I face from having been dogmatic, is that I have always 'pictured' Objectivists being a certain way - and that was the way of being dogmatic, like I was. Now that I have opened my eyes and have seen how different many Objectivists can be, it is much different than from what I thought it was and harder to get used to. And I always see many Objectivists acting the way I did, and I just want to address how things ought to be. But, mainly, I'd like to talk to non-dogmatic Objectivists so I can have my problems fully resolved -- not just mostly.

For instance: I have thought, at times, that if you were not exactly like John Galt, you were immoral. Then it hit me that I was not like him at all. So, that obviously led me to feel even worse. And it took me quite a while to figure out that that is not the way things are supposed to be. One is not supposed to ask "What would John Galt Do?" But "What Should I Do?" I think that if I can find an Objectivist that has a better 'sense-of-life' than being dogmatic, that I can be shown what living the happy moral life is really all about.

--Brian

[Guest jrshep]

I saw another post you did on mental illness, and would add my reply here because it is related. I would suggest that maybe you don't have as many mental health problems as you think, but just need to get a good sense of what mental health means to you, and then find a good therapist who can help you attain that.

Some people who come from dysfunctional parents just need to meet a few sane people outside their family to get a compass on what direction they want to go in life.  Maybe that applies to you.

I agree Pericles.

Brian, there are a couple of Objectivist psychologist with online sites:

Dr. Hurd at: http://www.drhurd.com

Dr. Ellen Kenner at: http://www.DrKenner.com

Both have a lot of good information on their sites, and both, I believe, offer telephone consultations.

[Areactor]

Well this is how I see it, Objectivism isn't immune to the "Lost Sheep syndrome". To bad too when it encourages Individuality, the use of your own mind, and freedom to your own body.

Objectivism encourages all this yet there are some people who believe that if their not John Galt or Howard Roark, their some how immoral. I don't remember reading that Ayn Rand believed every man should strive to be JG or HR.

Remember Mike and the truck driver at Galt's Glutch? These men weren't trying to be any one but themselves, using their own minds and allowing other people to do the same. Howard Roark and John Galt were ideal men not just because they were good at what they did but because they put every effort into being good at what they did. They were just better at doing what they did than a lot of people. But here is another reason why they were ideal men, because they didn't delve on the thought of being better than other people. I'm not even sure THEY KNEW IT! They did what they did because it was rational, productive, challenging and made them happy.

You want to become the ideal men? Here is an outline directly from OPAR

1. First acknowledge that Reality is absolute

2. Reason is the best and only method of cognition for human beings.

3. Every individual is an end unto himself

4. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness and more importantly their own mind.

5. Become a person of integrity.

6. Become a person of honesty.

7. Become a productive person

8. Become a person of pride.

9. Become a person of virtue.

10. Pursue rational happiness.

11. Nothings wrong with good sex.

[Brian]

Yes, thank you. I'm sure many people can gain a lot from your advice. The only thing I am uncertain of is: is living the ideal possible? and how does one know when they are living the ideal?

--Brian

[danielshrugged]

I want to caution against falling into a false dichotomy. Indeed there are "Objectivists"--in my experience, at least, a small number of them--who treat the philosophy dogmatically. Ayn Rand doesn't say that one ought to be an architect. She doesn't say you ought to have red hair. Those who dye their hair red to be like Roark are usually nuts. There are subtler cases, too, such as people who are impressed so much with Ayn Rand's powerful writing that they tend to obey the writing rather than the reality on which it is based. This leads to rationalistic deduction from the writing.

However, don't let the small group of dogmatists push you into subjectivism. I say this only because of the comment about Randroids and the reference to dogmatists on this forum. Randroids is a term the subjectivists use to poke fun at serious Objectivists. And as for this forum, I have not encountered much dogmatism from serious Objectivists. Care to name examples?

Areactor: I realize you may have meant that 11-point outline in jest, but let me point out that it is flawed as an outline of the ideal man. OPAR proceeds in hierarchical order; that is not the order that thinking follows chronologically. One does not begin with metaphysics. In addition, I hardly think an ideal man needs to know Objectivism, which is what you imply.

[Areactor]

Your right about it being in fun, the list was in no way an 11 step program! Though I see nothing of error on the list... ?

Of course the ideal man doesn't have to have knowledge of Objectivism. Did JG and HR refer to Miss Rand during their speeches?

[danielshrugged]

Your right about it being in fun, the list was in no way an 11 step program! Though I see nothing of error on the list...  ?

Of course the ideal man doesn't have to have knowledge of Objectivism. Did JG and HR refer to Miss Rand during their speeches?

No, they didn't. However, John Galt definitely knew Objectivism. His speech IS the philosophy.

[Areactor]

No, they didn't. However, John Galt definitely knew Objectivism. His speech IS the philosophy.

True true. But of course I personally would rather reach the ideal with Objectivism guiding me through the obsticles though.

[Areactor]

To Brian

I don't know if it's a bad thing that people take on Objectivism in order to gain self-esteem when they didn't have much self-esteem to begin with but all I remember was my experience with approaching the writings of Rand myself.

I remember it vividly, it's actually sorta funny. I read Atlas Shrugged between the second semester of my spohomore high school year and the summer. I had always seen the cover of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountionhead and looking at the cover you could obviously tell "IMPORTANT" was written all over it. Guys like me avoided things like that, yet I was still attracted to it, only because the cover said much more than just important.

The class was required to read individually find a book, read it, and write an essay. I chose AS. I didn't read it at first though because I realized the book was just to large. I got through the first three chapters and bought the Cliffnotes because time was running. I thought I had the time and suddenly time was against me. Boy was I sorry for reading the cliffnotes. Just by reading the headlines I realized what I missed by knowing the story before I read it. And yeah, I did read it!

[Betsy]

The only thing I am uncertain of is: is living the ideal possible? and how does one know when they are living the ideal?

WHO CARES??

The goal is not to live an "ideal life." It is to live YOUR life -- successfully and happily and that can be a real challenge. Fortunately, you came to the right philosophy.

The years between 15 and 30 are when we explore the world and discover what we love to do and what we want. You've only just begun and you have so much to look forward to. Objectivism is a terrific guide to happy successful living once you decide what you want to go after in life.

[BobbyT]

Danielshrugged:

I say this only because of the comment about Randroids and the reference to dogmatists on this forum. Randroids is a term the subjectivists use to poke fun at serious Objectivists. And as for this forum, I have not encountered much dogmatism from serious Objectivists. Care to name examples?

I agree. I would like to see what examples he pulls out of his hat.

I think I might know who Mr. "Pericles MBA" is talking about, and I disagree. I know he is of the school that says if you moderate a forum then it is unfair to the trolls that choose to spit there. Doubtless he views the zoo at h.p.o. as the ideal forum.

Pericles(MBA):

Examples of dogmatists posting here please?

[Areactor]

Betsy said it in better words than I did, and quite shorter too.

[Brian]

Why, there are quite a few that I have noticed but I would not mention their names because I do not want them to go after me about it. Besides, there are more people that have admitted being dogmatic, but aren't now, than there are actual dogmatists on this forum. Also, there are a many group of people who may not be dogmatists on this forum per se, but they see to have the symptom I did: asking the question "What Would John Galt Do?" --as if to say that they cannot decide themselves, because of lack of self-confidence. Just try glancing around the forum and judging for yourself. I would not lie about my thoughts - I encountered dogmatism as I saw it, and I did not bother remembering the people or what topic they were under. Also, I believe I would be more prone to recognizing them having dealt with it myself and can sense the various attitudes and ideas that go along with being dogmatic. And I didn't mean to imply that they were necessarily here, at this forum. My dad was dogmatic, as was his best friend, when I was very young which actually led to my dogmatism because he always talked about how great Rand was. What can you expect from a kid that hears that all of the time? If you have kids or are planning on it, teach your kids to love freedom, reason, and life before you introduce them to anything big like Rand. Don't let them take the route that I did: which was reading Rand mindlessly in 6th grade, merely because I thought I was doing good.

Also, what value could you gain if you knew who was a dogmatist on this forum? Would you search them up just to find evidence that they exist? To, perhaps, show me that I am wrong? I'm just curious.

Counting on your intellectual honesty,

--Brian

[Brian]

Betsy, an honest question now: If the goal is not to live an "ideal life" then what is the purpose of Rand depicting ideal heroes in her novels? She said man ought to be a heroic being. 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.

--Brian

[AndrewSternberg]

I see nothing wrong with asking "What would John Galt do?" as long as the person is also willing to ask and find the answer to why he would do it.

[Brian]

I mean to say that people ask "What Would John Galt Do?" in order to find answers for themselves. Meaning, if John Galt said to do it, and they were unsure of themselves, they would probably take his advice arbitrarily.

[Areactor]

Betsy, an honest question now:  If the goal is not to live an "ideal life" then what is the purpose of Rand depicting ideal heroes in her novels?  She said man ought to be a heroic being.  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.

--Brian

I believe your mistake may lie in the fact that your trying to be something you think Ayn Rand says you should be. I also think you are mistaken in what Rand is saying the ideal is.

Like I said before Brian, you are not John Galt or Howard Roark just as much your not Carl Rays acrossed the street! What made Rand's characters idealistic and heroic is the fact that they went about their lives rationally, productively, happily, and used the full extent of their ability. They didn't question this, that didn't take heed to anyone who told them to be otherwise. They trusted in their own minds.

You shouldn't be asking what should I do but are the conclusions I'm drawing correct. And your asking what should I do. No one can tell you these things but it is your life that you hold in your hand.

The ideal men in Rand's novels aren't to be imitated but reflected upon. You are not to become an engineer because John Galt was an engineer but behold his virtues that includes honest, integrity, and pride. These are reasons why he was ideal. He lived his life and no one elses. Hank Rearden never tried to become John Galt now did he? Rearden was his own person and so are you!

(BTW: I'm using these fictional characters because I don't know any better way for examples.)

Drawing the best buildings weren't what made Howard heroic. It wasn't building an advanced engine that made Galt heroic, it was what was in them that had them doing what they did.

[Brian]

Yes, I know, that is how I lived most of my life. But not anymore, except for a few brief moments until I realize my errors. I remember trying to be like Roark: he was alienated and happy. What was my first reaction? To try and make myself alienated in order to be happy. Seemingly stupid errors, but nonetheless, you will be surprised as to how common they really are.

[danielshrugged]

Why, there are quite a few that I have noticed but I would not mention their names because I do not want them to go after me about it.  Besides, there are more people that have admitted being dogmatic, but aren't now, than there are actual dogmatists on this forum.  Also, there are a many group of people who may not be dogmatists on this forum per se, but they see to have the symptom I did: asking the question "What Would John Galt Do?" --as if to say that they cannot decide themselves, because of lack of self-confidence.  Just try glancing around the forum and judging for yourself.  I would not lie about my thoughts - I encountered dogmatism as I saw it, and I did not bother remembering the people or what topic they were under.  Also, I believe I would be more prone to recognizing them having dealt with it myself and can sense the various attitudes and ideas that go along with being dogmatic.  And I didn't mean to imply that they were necessarily here, at this forum.  My dad was dogmatic, as was his best friend, when I was very young which actually led to my dogmatism because he always talked about how great Rand was.  What can you expect from a kid that hears that all of the time?  If you have kids or are planning on it, teach your kids to love freedom, reason, and life before you introduce them to anything big like Rand.  Don't let them take the route that I did: which was reading Rand mindlessly in 6th grade, merely because I thought I was doing good.

Also, what value could you gain if you knew who was a dogmatist on this forum?  Would you search them up just to find evidence that they exist?  To, perhaps, show me that I am wrong?  I'm just curious.

Counting on your intellectual honesty,

--Brian

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.

[Brian]

Oh, I see. Well, I would have made the same claim that Pericles made anyway, so no harm done. Of course this forum is a great way to attract some amazing individuals, but one must understand that this forum can attract anyone, including dogmatists. Just like there are Communists that come here admitting it right away and people that attack Objectivists. It's not surprising. We all want to preserve and defend this forum, but another reason why I brought up the subject of dogmatism is because they wear a guise - and they may not even realize they are being dogmatic. I didn't figure it out for myself until recently.

[DPW]

Those who dye their hair red to be like Roark are usually nuts.

Yeah, because Roark's hair was orange!

[Dagny]

To me, it seems there are many people who are dogmatic in their aproach to Objectivism.  How many of you wish you could meet Howard Roark and John Galt?  How many here believe HR and JG are better than you are?  Who here is looking to be exactly like them?

I will refer to things written in the thread "Ayn Rand Characters in Real Life". I am assuming (you can correct me if am wrong) that Brian is referring to the responses of some people (including myself) as that is where he first wrote about dogmatics. I agree with the other responses here who say that one should be oneself and not try be exactly like the characters in the book. The reason I started the thread is because I thought it would be fun to find similarities in other people...not necessarily exact replicas.

In my response as to being similar to Dagny, I took Ziggy's question to have been made jokingly and that was the way I answered it. Hence the smiley face at the end and the "maybes". I'm not seriously trying to be just like Dagny. The reason I chose that as my username is because I really couldnt think of any other. If I've learned anything in the last 23 years is that you should ALWAYS be true to yourself. I haven't really seen dogmatists on this forum as Brian is describing them. When I called my friend Howard Rourke it was more like he held his "sense of life" but by no means was he an architect or anything. It wasn't meant to be literal. As for my career plans....all I know for certain is that I want to get a Phd in Economics.