Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

I think I might have to leave objectivism

Rate this topic


James Bond

Recommended Posts

Avoiding the irrational responses that the randomn person makes--such remarks as, "Ayn Rand was a fascist!" is not wrong. If you sneeze, and someone says, "God bless you," are you required to reply that you are an atheist, that there is no God, and that by making that remark, they are proving that they are superstitious and irrational? I just say, "Thank you."

Obviously you are not required, in all situations regardless of context, to proffer your opinions on the existence of God whenever the subject of God comes up. Most times, it is entirely appropriate to respond to "God bless you" with a simple "thank you." Being honest does not mean being unnecessarily provocative.

However, that is an entirely different issue than whether or not it can be moral to actively hide one's agreement with Objectivism. In the example you offered, you (successfully) argue that is it not inappropriate to keep one's opinions to oneself in some situations. However, if someone asked you point-blank, "Are you an Objectivist?", it is always (barring emergency circumstances) incumbent upon you to tell the truth. There is a difference between speaking up because someone said "God bless you," and telling an outright lie to a straightforward question about your beliefs. The latter is not appropriate under normal circumstances.

There are important people, whose negative opinion counts, and who deserve to know the truth, but these are the minority.

Specifically, you do not owe it to Objectivism, or ARI, or the future, etc., to represent yourself as an Objectivist.

I agree completely with your last sentence. I would, however, amend it by saying that you owe it to yourself to honestly represent yourself to the world. It is worth noting that Rand's defense of honesty does not depend in any primary way on obligations to others; rather, her account is entirely egoistic. One cannot ultimately gain, long-term, from the attempt to fake reality, either for oneself or for others. If the reality is that you consider yourself an Objectivist, lying about it is not in your best interest (again, barring emergency circumstances).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, if someone asked you point-blank, "Are you an Objectivist?", it is always (barring emergency circumstances) incumbent upon you to tell the truth.

If only saying, "I'm a fan of Ayn Rand's, I'm an Objectivist!" actually achieved an identification of oneself, the issue of honesty might apply. But even if there were no issue of understanding, it should be pointed out that you do not owe others personal information.

I don't see the actual issue of people denying an affiliation with Objectivism, and whatever evil that leads to...

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, that is an entirely different issue than whether or not it can be moral to actively hide one's agreement with Objectivism. In the example you offered, you (successfully) argue that is it not inappropriate to keep one's opinions to oneself in some situations. However, if someone asked you point-blank, "Are you an Objectivist?", it is always (barring emergency circumstances) incumbent upon you to tell the truth. There is a difference between speaking up because someone said "God bless you," and telling an outright lie to a straightforward question about your beliefs. The latter is not appropriate under normal circumstances.

The term "emergency" has a very specific meaning in Objectivism: situations in which long-range survival is not possible. I think there are cases that are not emergencies in which it can be moral to lie -- for example, if you have reason to believe that an irrational person will punish you for your beliefs. If your professor will lower your grade if he finds out you like Ayn Rand, you're under no obligation to tell him even if he asks. It isn't any of his business. That doesn't mean you have to tell him you're a socialist, but you don't have to tell him you're an Objectivist either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even if there were no issue of understanding, it should be pointed out that you do not owe others personal information.

Certainly you may decline to answer, you don't have to bare your soul to just anyone, but you shouldn't misrepresent yourself. You have no long-term gains to make from pretending that reality is other than it is.

I don't see the actual issue of people denying an affiliation with Objectivism, and whatever evil that leads to...

I think you mischaracterize me as someone who thinks that you "owe it" to Objectivism or to Ayn Rand to pay fidelity. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying, plainly and simply, the following:

If you honestly see yourself as an Objectivist, or affiliated with Objectivism in some way, to deliberately lie about that affiliation in order to gain something of value from someone else (irrational as that person may be) is ultimately a self-defeating policy. Whatever you get from that person will not be worth the price you pay in your own integrity and honesty, and deception leads one to engage in further deception, and makes one's well-being dependent on others' continued misperceptions of reality (in this case, the reality about your status in regards to Objectivism).

In short, the evil does not flow from your denying an affiliation with Objectivism per se (it would be just as improper for a non-Objectivist to feign adherence in order to gain a value from someone), but rather the evil of the action arises from its disregard for the reality of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term "emergency" has a very specific meaning in Objectivism: situations in which long-range survival is not possible.

That is actually what I had in mind when I made the exception for emergencies. Specifically, I was thinking back to the incidence at Columbine (which, as it turns out, probably did not actually happen, but...) where Rachel Scott was asked if she was a Christian, and her affirmation of her beliefs cost her her life. Under the threat of force, in a situation like that one, one is not obligated to tell the truth, and this is exactly what I meant when I said "emergency."

I think there are cases that are not emergencies in which it can be moral to lie -- for example, if you have reason to believe that an irrational person will punish you for your beliefs. If your professor will lower your grade if he finds out you like Ayn Rand, you're under no obligation to tell him even if he asks. It isn't any of his business. That doesn't mean you have to tell him you're a socialist, but you don't have to tell him you're an Objectivist either.

What do you mean by, "you are under no obligation to tell him,"? Who is the implied object of the obligation (obligations being always obligations to someone in particular)? You certainly have no obligation to him, but I would maintain that, unless the situation includes threats of rights violations (i.e. force), you always have more to gain in terms of honesty, integrity, and self-respect than you have to lose from a grade in a class. This would support an obligation to yourself, rather than to him, to refrain from misrepresenting yourself. If he really pins you into a corner and won't take, "I'd rather not say," for an answer, then I for one would defend my beliefs rather than disown them. However, in my experience, almost no professors are so adamant against Objectivism that they would push a student that far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My thinking has orbited more back towards hard line objectivism. As I see it, objectivism is opposed to anarchy on practical grounds, not moral. While it would be nice to live in a society that didn't require any government, that wouldn't or won't happen on a global scale any time soon. The state is a necessary evil. There is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical...I would still support anarchic causes (see: seasteading, esp. for scientific projects)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state is a necessary evil.

But, if the state IS necessary (when operated according to its proper intended purpose), it cannot be evil. That which is necessary for man's life is good, in the right context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true, a good state would be good. I'm saying the conditions that necessitate a state are evil (criminals, fraud, etc.)

Criminals and fraud are not conditions. Criminals are people, and fraud is a crime. The conditions which necessitate a state are the existence of multiple entities called men with a given nature (of rational, volitional animals).

Considering that in order for an action to be deemed good or evil, it would need be performed by an entity with volition. Is it the 'state', or the individuals claiming to act on its behalf, or am I making a too fine a distinction?

A state of evil would be a political system brought about by humans, which is harmful to the humans living in it. Examples of such a state include a dictatorship and anarchy (if it is chosen by men - the state of anarchy which existed prior to the invention of civilization was not evil, because it wasn't chosen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that in order for an action to be deemed good or evil, it would need be performed by an entity with volition. Is it the 'state', or the individuals claiming to act on its behalf, or am I making a too fine a distinction?

Anything can be evaluated as good or evil (within a context) with respect to its impact on man's life, not just volitional actions. The sun is good for man's life in many instances, but to a man crossing the desert without water... This recognition of good or evil applies to the relationship between man's life and (insert thing here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Anyway, do you like Ayn Rand's novels? Were yoy moved by then? Do you discover new tidbits in her earlier stories, or in her latter essays that make you smile with recognition of genius - in a lot less sentences than the collection of authors and ideas the thread opener ennumerated - ? Do you see some extra value in her work that you don't see in Garet Garrett's? Have those writings changed your live in a positive way? Then you are an Objectivist!

Ayn Rand was a writer philosopher. She was not an economist, and decided von Mises could do the work better than her. She was certainly not a lawyer, and so we don't have a set of rules of how to manage or baptize a FREE GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS LIVING TOGETHER.

IF Murray Rothbard wants to call it Libertarianism because the term Liberal had been destroyed, or if you want to call it Anarchism because, probably for lack of historic studies, you can't imagine how an Objectivist Society would work - that's fine! You may call it wha<tever you want, and just might say: I love Ayn Rand's work and I fully agree with her philosophy, or mostly. No one demands you to tag yourself "Objectivist". Tagging is a very non Objectivistic thing to do, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, do you like Ayn Rand's novels? Were yoy moved by then? Do you discover new tidbits in her earlier stories, or in her latter essays that make you smile with recognition of genius - in a lot less sentences than the collection of authors and ideas the thread opener ennumerated - ? Do you see some extra value in her work that you don't see in Garet Garrett's? Have those writings changed your live in a positive way? Then you are an Objectivist!

Absolutely none of the above determines whether one is an Objectivist.

I love Ayn Rand's work and I fully agree with her philosophy, or mostly.

If you agree with it, why don't you put it into practice? Start checking your premises before you blather out nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely none of the above determines whether one is an Objectivist.

If you agree with it, why don't you put it into practice? Start checking your premises before you blather out nonsense.

Are you saying at every time one should repeat like prayer, or remind fellow members of this forum, what I believe about the reality of Reality, my right to live my life, nmy lack of a right to hurt somebody else, the obvious moral and material superiority of Capitalism, and perhaps even remind you that I've been enjoying Rachmaninof, and the delights of free inquiry Atheism provides, perhaps 10 years before I discovered Ayn Rand when I was 16?

If the guy is opening the thread about "leaving" Objectivism, it's fair to say he's already accepted its basic premises - or has a problem with one of them. Since the latter doesn't appear to be the case, I was showing him the way I identify with Ayn Rand's concepts.

What blathered nonesense do you believe so irrational as to tell me that?

I sometimes like coming to a place where subjects can be discussed in a rational manner - that is free of bias; but I doubt I'm the only Objectivist who finds so many people here so full of answers in proportion to questions,. Makes you wonder whether you are talking with genius happy satisfied individuals, or with tape recorders.

I believe that might, just might, be the reason we are slurred as "Androids" of all imaginable insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying at every time one should repeat like prayer, or remind fellow members of this forum, what I believe about the reality of Reality, my right to live my life, nmy lack of a right to hurt somebody else, the obvious moral and material superiority of Capitalism, and perhaps even remind you that I've been enjoying Rachmaninof, and the delights of free inquiry Atheism provides, perhaps 10 years before I discovered Ayn Rand when I was 16?

No.

If the guy is opening the thread about "leaving" Objectivism, it's fair to say he's already accepted its basic premises - or has a problem with one of them. Since the latter doesn't appear to be the case, I was showing him the way I identify with Ayn Rand's concepts.

That's fine, but don't call how YOU identify with her concepts Objectivism.

What blathered nonesense do you believe so irrational as to tell me that?

This:

"Anyway, do you like Ayn Rand's novels? Were yoy moved by then? Do you discover new tidbits in her earlier stories, or in her latter essays that make you smile with recognition of genius - in a lot less sentences than the collection of authors and ideas the thread opener ennumerated - ? Do you see some extra value in her work that you don't see in Garet Garrett's? Have those writings changed your live in a positive way? Then you are an Objectivist!"

You are an Objectivist if and only if you have fully examined the integrated philosophy of Objectivism and agree with it. (You may still be learning the nuances but the key premises must be firmly entrenched.)

You do not have to *like* Rand's novels or have been "moved" by them. (Although I suspect all Objectivists do and have)

You absolutely cannot base your claim to being an Objectivist on "tidbits". You must examine and agree with the entire, integrated philosophy - not accept it like a pill, but study it and determine that it is right like 2+2 is right, understanding WHY it is right.

Even simply finding value in the work is insufficient. I find valuable points of information on how to live in the Bible. The Bible has (esp in Proverbs) some damn good advice on it. That doesn't make me a Christian. I find the points that make sense, I evaluate why they make sense, I integrate them, but I don't become a Christian by doing so. I reject the Bible's fundamental premise - I am most definitely not a Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

That's fine, but don't call how YOU identify with her concepts Objectivism.

This:

"Anyway, do you like Ayn Rand's novels? Were yoy moved by then? Do you discover new tidbits in her earlier stories, or in her latter essays that make you smile with recognition of genius - in a lot less sentences than the collection of authors and ideas the thread opener ennumerated - ? Do you see some extra value in her work that you don't see in Garet Garrett's? Have those writings changed your live in a positive way? Then you are an Objectivist!"

Yes you were right on that. But again she's mentioned other philosophers, it seems she's examined Objectivism thoroughly ebough as to compare it with other authors, so I was thinking "what was left no to call herself a tranhumanist-capitalist-etc". I offered my experience. I don't claim enjoying tidbits (i mant jewels) from earlier novels (which denote the integrity in her whole decade-spanned opera) makes you an Objectivist. Sorry for arising confusion!

But it's rather frustrating to have to go all through the basics each time anything new is discussed.

You are an Objectivist if and only if you have fully examined the integrated philosophy of Objectivism and agree with it. (You may still be learning the nuances but the key premises must be firmly entrenched.)

You do not have to *like* Rand's novels or have been "moved" by them. (Although I suspect all Objectivists do and have)

In that case I am first and foremost a moved, thanked, blessed fan of Ayn Rand's writings and only second an Objectivist. And when her philosophy is mostly based on her fiction writings it says a lot about my "allegience to Objectivist". I am still to beome a hero though but I'm sure they all took their time. I'm in the quarry right now, or at the Department Store....

You absolutely cannot base your claim to being an Objectivist on "tidbits". You must examine and agree with the entire, integrated philosophy - not accept it like a pill, but study it and determine that it is right like 2+2 is right, understanding WHY it is right.

Even simply finding value in the work is insufficient. I find valuable points of information on how to live in the Bible. The Bible has (esp in Proverbs) some damn good advice on it. That doesn't make me a Christian. I find the points that make sense, I evaluate why they make sense, I integrate them, but I don't become a Christian by doing so. I reject the Bible's fundamental premise - I am most definitely not a Christian.

Many books have I enjoyed and found value in, but they all lack exactly what you just said: a comprehensive integrated philosophy. All the other books I like are parts and tidbit of a bigger philosophy I don't agree with. Namely altruism.

It is hard to believe one can fully and thoroughly understand it, but when it happens, it's time to move forward and investigating ways to apply it (Objectivism), and inspire. In other words, try and continue the way of Ayn Rand, not just examine it, decide that you suddenly or after years of study you agree with it and find the effects of a pill in it.

As for what you find of value in the Bible, other than anthropological invaluable information, I'd be glad to join you in a new thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, if I was I wouldn't specify how tidbits in all of her fiction writings integrate perfectly into what was THEN codified as Objectivism (but of course existed in essence before).

But in any case, I don't believe we have discussed the topic of the thread at all.

- off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, really.

That she did not document her philosophy completely for the public prior to publication is not proof that her philosophy was not codified in her own mind.

i believe that's what I said. at least definitly what I meant. IT wasn't codified (that meand it's outside her mind, meaning of CODE) but it existed and it sprung up in geysers which I call the jewels of her earlier writings and her novels.

off for good,. c'mon, this is why ..... you know... (intentional)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i believe that's what I said. at least definitly what I meant. IT wasn't codified (that meand it's outside her mind, meaning of CODE) but it existed and it sprung up in geysers which I call the jewels of her earlier writings and her novels.

off for good,. c'mon, this is why ..... you know... (intentional)

Hopefully you understand why this is a confusing statement:

"And when her philosophy is mostly based on her fiction writings"

Her fiction writings served as the early means of delivery of her philosophy. They were illustrative of her philosophy, not based on. In a very real way, they *were* the first public codification of her philosophy.

And yes, it's off topic - but I do not accept the premise that being off topic is a reason to accept errors, particularly egregious ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, think it the other way around: what WOULD the Objectivist Philosophy be without her fiction writings?

Less well known.

Well, I think that says it all. I'd love to have a name for Objectivist of the kind that would reach such conclusion - so I can easily differentiate myself from.

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...