Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

self-styling

Rate this topic


Mr. Wynand
 Share

Recommended Posts

When people ask me what I am politically, I am used to saying libertarian, because the time it would take to explain objectivism would be enough to get a license renewed at the DMV. So to quasi-socialists looking for a brief argument, what should I say I am?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people ask me what I am politically, I am used to saying libertarian, because the time it would take to explain objectivism would be enough to get a license renewed at the DMV. So to quasi-socialists looking for a brief argument, what should I say I am?

Laissez-Faire capitalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people ask me what I am politically, I am used to saying libertarian, because the time it would take to explain objectivism would be enough to get a license renewed at the DMV. So to quasi-socialists looking for a brief argument, what should I say I am?

An individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually tell people I'm an Objectivist--most people have heard of us now! Most people only ask these questions as social niceties anyway and they aren't expecting an explanation if it turns out you belong to some weird religious sect. At worst, they'll just ask for a quick blurb so they have some idea where you fit with the stuff they do know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
I usually tell people I'm an Objectivist--most people have heard of us now! Most people only ask these questions as social niceties anyway and they aren't expecting an explanation if it turns out you belong to some weird religious sect. At worst, they'll just ask for a quick blurb so they have some idea where you fit with the stuff they do know.

I say "small l libertarian". Being too cute causes more problems than it answers, such as eyes glazing over, and being wise-ass gets the kind of response it deserves. "Laissez-Faire Capitalism" is not a full-bore political system, it is the results of one i.e. the consequence of a system based on individual rights. Libertarian, qua politics is the closest to what I support based on Objectivism. But then, when I started that 30 years ago Objectivism was not that well known. and amongst 90% of the people if you said Objeictivist they would say "obwhostivist?", "Grind me a poun of that while you're at it", "I had one of thse but a wheel fell off" or "Wanna run that by me again in Englisn?" at which point, it's time to pack it in. You have about 15 seconds to engage someone so don't be obscurantist.

The world works by "successive approximations". You start with a ballpark answer and get closer and closer. You see a galaxy before the individual stars, the stars before the full star system, the system before the individual planets and finally Eath and it's moon, then you land. If you get too cute and wise-ass, peope get the impression that you're deliberately trying to be sui generis and don't want to emesh themsleves in such matters and write you off as airy-fairy or stuck-up if they are normal and over 40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

While there is really not a place for that in politics, since it depends on joint action with others and you must be percieved as rational and reliable and not a kook on some fringe, there is a place for it elsewhere.

A "self-syle" is a fictional representation of oneself. A fiction is, according to Aristotle by way of Rand "...the world, not as it is, but as it might and ought to be". Now if you look at me in that light, what you have is an early 1950's "space man". This fits my worldview. Thiese guys were G-men when "creidbility gap" was 16 years away, more like Steve McGarrett. They were moral absolutists, with an inherent belief in the goodness of their civilization, which was implicitly founded on reason. They were a combination of cop, military and special ops guys. It fits my mindset. One of my grad school instructors from th middle 1970's had done a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory on me some two years before I came to that institution. He also did a a psychological interview with me as part of that evaluation. I was so impressed that I made it a point to apply to that college to have him as an instructor; I was not disappointed. That test is score in a bazillion ways. My top personality type was as a computer programmer and Air Force Officer scoring high on the Adventure scale and I was least like a psychologist and "city life". What can I say except that I was a bit of a puzzlement to most of that department (one of my achievements was integrating Statistics with Philosphy). Add to that my big connection with Rand, and given that this was the Psych department, Branden, still somewhat in Rand's shadow and you have something far from mundane. So you see, that fits me. The civilizations these Space Rangers, Space Patrollers and Solar Guardsmen/cadets are the defenders of are scientific utopias. That is not stated, but shown in their technology and attitudes. This was most apparent in Space Patrol since it was targetted at both kids and adults and Ed Kemmer carried the part off brilliantly. His portayal of Buzz Corry was far from the usual wooden character and, just as Harrison Ford mad Han Solo work, Kemmer made Corry far more than the character sheet indicated.

In Adolescent Psychology, this is knwn as the Personal Myth. more coreectly personal fiction. When I was 8, being (playing) a cowboy or knight had no meaning to me; they were the past and gone. The spacemen were the future and one the way to becoming real. Superman and super-heroes, aside from the adventure and catologuing the different powers (and please note, they were a product of the left), also had no meaning for me. That was more subtle and took years for me to figure out. What it was to me was the super hero thing was a desire for a rigged game where good automatically wins by some supernatural rather than human attribute. A super hero is not a hero at all since there is no extraordinary effort or risk to his life. The best thing that ever happened to Superman was Kryptonite.

Another pattern is the personal fable. As you know, a fable is a tale with a reality-relevent point or "moral of the story", using animals as persons. this personal fiction is the adoption of an animal-self. This is the addition to the ego-inventory of a set o idealized characteristics identified with a particular kind of animal and has been the subject of many pre-Scientific Age stories.

Both of these are metaphors for the person. They sit at the surface of the ego and are a summation of the salient characteritics of that person's self-awareness and self-identity cast in comprehensible terms since the internal "language" is electro-molecular occurring in somewhat fixed physical structure.

If you look at the work of Ittleson and Proshansky, though they did not make this identification, the metaphor for oneself is part of the Personal Identity Kit. This is a normal and necessary part of the healthy personality.

I would further wager that this ties into the sense of life, since it appears to come into being during a time when the person is guided primarily by that.

While not a good idea in politics, it is a good idea in personal development. For one thing it links the persona to the esternal world via archtypes, which have both psychological and social origins and meaning.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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