Objectivism as an ideal

[geekusa]

Is Objectivism an ideal?

In the same way that Communism and religions demand men act against their nature Objectivism does too. Calling on man to only use his faculty of reason to perceive the world is against man's nature. It also seems against man's nature to consider himself isolated, (this might be a function of society's historic sentiment) that he should not expect help if he is in need and more importantly that he should not take advantage of others if he feels himself in need, or justified or desperate. (This might be a function of society's historic sentiment) It takes very special people to be able to do this, and to do it to the degree that Rand's heroes do, seems impossible.

This seems to classify Objectivism as an ideal. I have read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead but I don't remember this being addressed. I was just wondering if this was a shared sentiment.

[RationalBiker]

Objectivism does not demand anything of anyone. Objectivism identifies that reality demands things of man and says "Pay attention or there will be consequences." Objectivism offers man a guide in how to navigate that reality according to his nature.

[Nate T.]

I disagree. It is true that you often see behavior of the type you list above. People are not always rational, and are unaccustomed to thinking carefully about certain issues-- this is a consequence of accepting the ideas of pragmatism and (sometimes) outright irrationality in our culture today. It is also true that some people expect to be helped for no reason than the fact that they need it-- this is a consequence of the idea of altruism in today's society.

However, just because these ideas are commonly held and accepted does not make it part of man's nature, just as the prevalence of slavery in the U.S. up to 150 years ago proves that enslaving others is part of man's nature. One cannot accept the ideas in one's culture as a given-- one must check them against an objective measure of ethics, which is man's life as a rational being. It is, on the other hand, man's nature that he must be rational and make use of his mind to survive. Hence, Objectivism is distinguished from the other systems you mention in that the moral is that which yields the good for man's life (his long term flourishing, that is) in practice, instead of pain and death.

There are some factual implications that aren't right in your post too, such as the notion that Objectivism requires people to be "isolated", and the role of charity, but I'll leave that for others.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Nate T.

[DavidOdden]

Is Objectivism an ideal?

It is a philosophy. It identifies certain aspects of the human mind, for example it identifies what "purpose", "reason" and "morality" are, and says what actions are moral, or reasonable. That does not mean that all men act morally or reasonably. I don't know what it means to be "an ideal", but I would think that that refers to any philosophy that recognises these concepts. The alternative would not be a philosophy, it would just be a description of events, e.g. a statement "This person stole a loaf of bread", "That person paid his debt" etc. Eventually, you'd just have a list of actions and no judgments in terms of purpose -- you'd treat all human action as random accident. That would be useless.

[Sarrisan]

Before you can say that something is "against man's nature," you have to define clearly what his "nature" is. Objectivism identifies that Man's nature is that of a volitional being, who must make rational choices in order to survive.

What exactly are you suggesting Man's nature is?

[Nate T.]

trivias7,

There's a difference between Rands' dramatizing events in a novel to make a literary point (such as the example you gave, as well as the "rape scene" in the Fountainhead which is the other example typically given) and her actual ethical philosophy, about which she (and others) have written quite a lot.

Also, I do not think that because some people misconstrue the philosophy of Objectivism (by demonizing emotions, for instance, or adopting Rand's personal preferences like smoking, orange hair, etc., as some kind of moral mandate) that the philosophy itself is "idealistic" in the sense of its practice being unattainable. It simply means that some people misunderstand or misapply the philosophy for whatever reason.

[KevinDW78]

geekusa, since you have only read Rand's fiction so far, you may want to next read her non-fiction. In her book, The Romantic Manifesto, she explains that literature, as an artform, has a goal to be idealized recreations of reality based on the author's value-judgements. Perhaps that is what you are refering to when you used the word "ideal". In the context of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead being works of art, yes their heros are idealized representations of Rand's philosophy. However, that doesn't mean the philosphy itself is an "ideal".