Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why do some 'outgrow' Objectivism with age?

Rate this topic


01503

Recommended Posts

People who say "good in theory, but not in practice..." are generally intellectually lazy people who can't or won't think through their beliefs and prefer to stumble through life with a hodge podge of whims, gut feelings and other people's opinions...most of which contradict each other in some way or another. Honestly, where "in practice" have you seen Objectivism in the first place? Not to mention, if it's a good theory, it will work in practice...otherwise it's a bad theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've seen people a lot more comfortable with talking to people who weren't Objectivist, a lot more relaxed in general, a lot more willing to form (at least limited) friendships with non-Objectivists because they focus primarily on positive value, and not the negation of negatives.

I think that's good, but see, the kind of ex-Objectivist is the very kind who claims this for people regardless of his evaluation of them. They might be some twisted, hippie, Socialist, but they'll claim Objectivism is too dogmatic, too hostile, in not 'letting' him treat such a man as an equal. It's good to look for the positive, but what I think Kelleyists try to do is just ignore and standard of good or bad evaluation as a kind of 'sock it to ya' towards Objectivism, to give them a blank cheque on the morality of their interactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think JASKN, adrock, and musenji make some good points, but there is one that isn't being touched yet -- the Objectivists -- the people who claim to practice the philosophy. They may be part of the problem, not necessarily the philosophy itself.

If you read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead and discover that these heroic and marvelous characters are based on the philosophy the author developed, a sense of excitement would naturally build up in anyone who takes ideas, especially the ones Rand proposes, seriously. So usually people follow the book trail and attempt to learn and digest all of this stuff themselves and run into some difficult. So they seek out help from people who are already studying the philosophy, and what to do they find?

They find losers who claim productivity as a virtue, yet work a dead-end job and live with their parents. They find people who claim to be intellectuals, and all they do is spew out the same memorized lines Rand or some Objectivist author wrote. They find people who believe Objectivism requires them to be a rude, inconsiderate person. They witness inflated egos. They find people who won’t go outside because they are paranoid that everyone is out to destroy them for being good; trying to take away what they produce even though it's obvious they really can't produce anything.

They encounter destroyed dreams, broken personalities, and undelivered promises. They encounter normal-human-every-day human beings, not the great men Rand wrote about and wanted to see. They see failure, not results. And people are always looking for results. Since the dawn of our conceptual faculty we have desired to know what the future holds for us. In man's modern age he sees demonstrations of what products or processes can do for him. Men promise results and sell the means to those ends. And a lot of people, maybe the untrained mind does this by its very nature, only see the ends. You see the healthy body and seek to gain it by imitating what the person who has it has done. The same goes for the wealthy man, the successful man, the loved man... Those are all ends, consequences, and results.

They have the things you desire, so have do what they do to achieve them. But if you see the opposite, people who are claiming to have what you want and don't, rejecting them and their methods is a reasonable response. The same is true for Objectivism. If you encounter a whole bunch of people you despise and who disappoint you practicing something you thought would make you better... it makes sense to reject the thing you were seeking.

It makes sense, but it's not the best option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've certainly met a number of Objectivists that I don't like much, but I came across Objectivism through some really awesome people. I was then a "solitary" Objectivist for a number of years--I didn't know anyone into the philosophy, really.

For the most part, I've found that Objectivists are pretty cool people to know, but I have my own standards for who is and isn't an Objectivist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead and discover that these heroic and marvelous characters are based on the philosophy the author developed, a sense of excitement would naturally build up in anyone who takes ideas, especially the ones Rand proposes, seriously. So usually people follow the book trail and attempt to learn and digest all of this stuff themselves and run into some difficult. So they seek out help from people who are already studying the philosophy, and what to do they find?

...

It makes sense, but it's not the best option.

If people reject Objectivism for any of these reason, then they are still essentially second-handers. The reason--it should be irrelevant to said person whether or not some or all of the other "Objectivists" live up to their own potential or not. If one find Objectivism's principles and ideas to be correct and right then it shouldn't matter to him in the least whether or not someone lives those principles without contradiction or not; the only thing that matters is that whenever the person himself has saw the nature of the good that he alone strives to implement those principles into his own life. But everyone's life has context, and most people were not born to Objectivist parents or even heard of Objectivism until later in life, therefore they have to start from whatever point that they were at "pre-Objectivism" and learn to integrate the principles from their and resolve any previous contradictions. All this usually takes some time. What matters and what makes these people who do this heroic is that regardless of the circumstances of his past life, he has now saw the nature of the good, and will not allow himself to fail to strive to achieve it regardless of whether others do so also, or even notice.

One who would have the fruit must first climb the tree.--Thomas Fuller

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think JASKN, adrock, and musenji make some good points, but there is one that isn't being touched yet -- the Objectivists -- the people who claim to practice the philosophy. They may be part of the problem, not necessarily the philosophy itself.

If you read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead and discover that these heroic and marvelous characters are based on the philosophy the author developed, a sense of excitement would naturally build up in anyone who takes ideas, especially the ones Rand proposes, seriously. So usually people follow the book trail and attempt to learn and digest all of this stuff themselves and run into some difficult. So they seek out help from people who are already studying the philosophy, and what to do they find?

They find losers who claim productivity as a virtue, yet work a dead-end job and live with their parents. They find people who claim to be intellectuals, and all they do is spew out the same memorized lines Rand or some Objectivist author wrote. They find people who believe Objectivism requires them to be a rude, inconsiderate person. They witness inflated egos. They find people who won’t go outside because they are paranoid that everyone is out to destroy them for being good; trying to take away what they produce even though it's obvious they really can't produce anything.

They encounter destroyed dreams, broken personalities, and undelivered promises. They encounter normal-human-every-day human beings, not the great men Rand wrote about and wanted to see. They see failure, not results. And people are always looking for results. Since the dawn of our conceptual faculty we have desired to know what the future holds for us. In man's modern age he sees demonstrations of what products or processes can do for him. Men promise results and sell the means to those ends. And a lot of people, maybe the untrained mind does this by its very nature, only see the ends. You see the healthy body and seek to gain it by imitating what the person who has it has done. The same goes for the wealthy man, the successful man, the loved man... Those are all ends, consequences, and results.

........

It makes sense, but it's not the best option.

I would have to say I've met a couple of nutjobs, an few rude assholes, and a fair number of decent people. Of course the younger ones just getting started tend to be stonybroke at times... I was there myself way back when. But I repeat: MOST of the Objectivists I have met are by no means unproductive penniless losers, and I certainly am not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the younger ones just getting started tend to be stonybroke at times...

What yoo chattin' 'bout geezer? I'll NUT ya, mate, do you in proper like!

:thumbsup:

What Mammon is talking about is exactly what Peikoff was talking about at the beginning of 'Objectivism Through Induction', where he talks about the Rationalist Objectivists, who honestly want to integrate Objectivism and all that, but end up only tying it to other ideas, not to reality, so it becomes more like an umbrella blowing in the breeze of ideas, getting bent inside out every now and then, still not fixed into anything solid and too fragile to be of any real use -- as opposed to solid, fixed canopy, drilled into the earth with strong cables.

I've got to say though, on the topic of being deliberatly abrasive, I find it hard at times to tell how I'm coming off. An old friend of mine tells me I'm more 'up my own arse' and negative towards other people. Thing is, I think that was true when I first started studying Objectivism and I was like, "Holy balls! The world is fucked up!" and then I calmed down as I realised that most people are just mixed, and if they were truely evil, they wouldn't be able to even clothe and feed themself. But there can be a fine line between being firm in your convictions and coming off as just someone looking for a fight, a line I find difficult to see at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is this disease in the culture where everyone feels the need to express an opinion about something even though they know that they haven't bothered to study the subject they are commenting on. Objectivism is not easy to grasp, so people try to associate it with something that is easier/more well known. Its usually a lack of understanding, and an unwillingness to investigate futher, which by itself is no crime, but then they should just say- I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that peer pressure is a big factor that prevents people from learning more about Objectivism and integrating it into their daily lives. Just saying that you think altruism is evil, that you're an atheist and you're selfish is enough to alienate you from a large number of social groups -- not to mention close friends and family (in fact, simple alienation can easily and quickly turn into downright hatred). The fact that most people don't accept or understand explanations of those ideas just compounds the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that note I was noticing a discussion (elsewhere) between an off-the-deep-end religionist and an atheist about something that really didn't have anything to do with religion (the efficacy of a specific treatment for a medical condition). I was actually siding with the religionist (a broken watch is right twice a day), and tried to point out to him in a side conversation that continually dragging his quite-irrelevant-even-if-it-were-valid faith-rhetoric into the conversation was only confusing the atheist who was trying to ask, "will this work for atheists?" (Obviously afraid this was some form of faith healing.)

I told him he was free to say that a dyed in the wool atheist, Objectivist even, had benefitted, so that should answer her question. Anyhow, he actually recognized the term "Objectivist," claimed that he was once "John Gault [sic] all the way" but had found Jesus, etc., ad freaking nauseam. Scratch one more chalkmark under "outgrew Objectivism." Though I doubt he ever understood it in the first place. I've heard of no cases of actual Objectivists turning to religion. (And of course he ignored my main point.)

[i was also quite annoyed that he claimed that I was beholden to his faith in that treatment since it had actually worked for me.]

Anyhow, the point behind this story is that many who have

"outgrown" Objectivism

have really

outgrown "Objectivism"

...if you catch my distinction. They misunderstood it, believed something incorrect and therefore, when they realized it was wrong, abandoned it. Alas they abandoned it for something else just as wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have talked to people who claim that--from experience--Objectivism does not work in reality, that it is 'good in theory, but bad in practice.' Why do some outgrow Objectivism with age?

If we want to broaden this from "outgrow Objectivism" to "leave Objectivism", I found Dr. Peikoff's explanation of one common cause in his "Fact and Value" article to be very insightful:

...The typical (though not invariable) pattern in this kind of case is that the accuser started out in Objectivism as a dogmatist, cursing or praising people blindly, in obedience, as he thought, to his new-found "authorities." Then at last his pent-up resentment at this self-made serfdom erupts and he becomes an angry subjectivist, denouncing the "excessive anger" of those who make moral judgments...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As pointed out earlier, I think they reject it because it seems harder to them to live a principle-oriented life.

Pragmatism is the biggest threat to one's holding to philosophical values. For the sake of contact-making at the beggining, and acceptance when already succesful, people usually claim to belong to whatever group they want to climb their way up in. When rich, many people are implicitly menaced to excuse their success, initiate foundations and state "giving back to the community" as their companies' ultimate philosophy.

I was having a hard time with this myself (as businessmen and moguls tend to claim a lot of altruism) until I understood that I don't have to overtly reject their postures or advertise mine. As stated many times by Ayn Rand herself one can simply "say no", disagree on an issue without further explanation unless asked, and go along. This same altruist appearing people also respect other people's values' once they've grasped enough of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you explain why Rand considered homosexuality immoral then?

She said something to this effect in one Q&A session for one of the Ford Hall Forums, and never committed it to writing. It is not clear if she retained this view in her later days. Ask Harry Binswanger--I recall he might have memories of her later, considered views. Also, for what it's worth, Leonard Peikoff has spoken publicly on a number of occasions (his radio show, especially) about how and why he does not consider homosexuality immoral. His reasons relate to the deeply entrenched nature of sexual emotions, and how they are no longer open to one's choice. I'm sure there are discussion threads about this somewhere on this site.

P.S.: If you listen to Dr. Peikoff's latest podcast, you'll hear him answer a question about why there are so many gays at Objectivist conferences. His response: "Do you have a problem with that?" The questioner says no (I think he thought it was a good thing!) and everybody laughs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What matters and what makes these people who do this heroic is that regardless of the circumstances of his past life, he has now saw the nature of the good, and will not allow himself to fail to strive to achieve it regardless of whether others do so also, or even notice.

And, as I see it, the real losers are not those who find failure but those who accept defeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With some claim to geezerhood at 67, I'd like to add my two cents. I don't think age is a factor and I think intellectual laziness is the primary reason or a contributing factor.

Most of us are taught our philosophical basics as small children until we start studying on our own. For the most part, we are taught a Christian ethic and, for the most part, it serves us pretty well. Very few non-Objectivists wallow in the negativity that goes along with total package that is Christianity. They accept that it is a good way to relate to people, they are comfortable with it, and most of them think they are pretty decent people themselves. And most of them are.

A very small percentage of people anywhere actually make a study of the philosophy that guides their life. They accept most of the principles they were taught as children making small adjustments to accommodate changing times and seldom, if ever, think deeply about them.

Those here in OO.N broke out of the herd somewhere along the line. Something happened to us that made our introduction to Objectivism a life-changing experience.

(Aside: I'm new here. Has the question been asked in the Forum: What in your life set you up to be receptive to Objectivism?? I would like to see some of the answers about what makes this group different.)

That should be about two cents worth. ES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in your life set you up to be receptive to Objectivism??

For me, it was probably my father's consistent encouragement to learn and produce, combined with a lack of religious upbringing (not anti-religion, just no religion at all). I discovered that by being rational, it's possible to learn and produce quickly, and I fell into computer science partly as a result of my attraction to rationality. The light went on for me regarding Objectivism when I saw how it explained so much of what I feel is wrong with the world -- feelings I've had since grade school (I'm in my late 40's).

However, I'm now learning that pure rationalism is a dangerous thing, and in fact is very different from Objectivism. I'm still in the process of sorting that all out....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

I don't believe I know anyone who used to be Objectivist and isn't one now.

I agree with the idea that people are intellectually lazy. I think they use friends/family as an excuse, which is part & parcel of being lazy but also is connected to a fear that they will be ostracized by people they've known all their lives. That's a risk, for sure. I don't regret the choice I made to stick with Objectivism, although I am saddened that none of my family members was even mildly interested.

Back to the topic: I've met some people who gave the impression of being active mentally, and from whom I did not expect to hear that Objectivism is something one OUGHT to outgrow, as in, it's high school and should be dropped from consideration when one graduates. Such people never were Objectivists obviously but I have concluded that such people make it "a problem with Objectivism" to belittle the philosophy, and make it seem unimportant. Thus they are able to delude themselves it's not a problem with themselves and their own desire to hold contradictory ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my run-ins with people who claim to have been Objectivists, it's usually extreme arrogance. They are usually under the impression that they are able to understand a novel or a body of work like Rand's by reading a few online posts or a review.

And then they read some other article, that superficially condemns Objectivism, and they move on to the next thing that tickles their ego and makes them feel super smart and special. They're easy to spot, on account that they have no idea what Objectivism is and what Rand wrote about, when you go beyond egoism or "small government".

In general, what makes these people tick is looking down on the silly people they "outgrew" without even making an effort. In reality, they are going through life so effortlessly because they don't bother making an effort and understanding complex ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my run-ins with people who claim to have been Objectivists, it's usually extreme arrogance. They are usually under the impression that they are able to understand a novel or a body of work like Rand's by reading a few online posts or a review.

And then they read some other article, that superficially condemns Objectivism, and they move on to the next thing that tickles their ego and makes them feel super smart and special. They're easy to spot, on account that they have no idea what Objectivism is and what Rand wrote about, when you go beyond egoism or "small government".

In general, what makes these people tick is looking down on the silly people they "outgrew" without even making an effort. In reality, they are going through life so effortlessly because they don't bother making an effort and understanding complex ideas.

I agree. Most of the time to get something burned into your memory you have to read the material over and over again. This is expecially true when trying to learn Objectivism. More often than not you aren't going to remember and/or grasp 'everything' in one go around. The answers to the questions you may have are all there, but many times people forget what they read.

The Ayn Rand Institute has a suggested reading list; I would recommend an astute philosopher to read those essays on that list atleast five times and Ayn Rand's fiction works(TF and AS) atleast three times. I haven't done this yet myself though so you may disagree with me all you like.

Edited by dadmonson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ayn Rand Institute has a suggested reading list; I would recommend an astute philosopher to read those essays on that list atleast five times and Ayn Rand's fiction works(TF and AS) atleast three times.

What is the point in reading through those things that many times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for one you forget some things. Also you do not always see things the exact same. I have read AS and the FH 3 times each and each time i gain different things from them and improve myself by questioning things about my character that I know are not as good as they could be.

maybe reading is not for you but Objectivist works keep my mind working much better

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...