Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

objectivism!=entertainment

Rate this topic


gecko
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not sure if here is the right forum for my question (or if it has been answered before and I just couldn't find it). I have read Rands Fountainhead and some of her nonfictional books and have my problems with some kind of contradiction. Please tell me if I am wrong (not, that I would care) but isn't objectivism about beeing and end withing itself? So thinking and living independent. Therefore, shouldn't you banish every sort of entertainment and even studying objectivism to be the pure you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylite

Keep studying, for example read Atlas Shrugged, and you may soon find that the Objectivist moral ideal is exactly that of the Stylites, the early Christian pillar-saints. It’s an unusual interpretation, but work at it and you may get there. You indeed have to get as far away from others as possible, for as Sartre said, “hell is other people”. But, as for entertainment, it’s hard to eliminate that completely, even the most dedicated Sylite can’t help feeling amused by the reactions he gets when he pelts passersby with his feces. I fear that you will find Objectivism a hard philosophy to understand and live by, maybe you should try giving Nihilism a shot first.

icon_rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... isn't objectivism about beeing and end withing itself? So thinking and living independent. Therefore, shouldn't you banish every sort of entertainment and even studying objectivism to be the pure you?
I don't follow the line of reasoning from independence to the banishment of entertainment or study. I think you're using the term "independence" in a way that's very different from Rand. For instance, why did you choose entertainment in particular: why not be "independent" from all intellectual influence by not listening to or reading anything anyone else says or writes? And, why focus only on intellectual "independence". Why do try to be independent of material things as well? Of course these are just rhetorical questions to highlight that you need to think about what independence really means.

A person can seek help from others, can learn from all and sundry, can ask for advice, and can still be independent.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Independence is not a matter of being detached and impervious to the rest of the world. As it is used in Objectivism in reference to a virtue within the philosophy, independence is in reference to how one thinks and makes decisions. It means that you critically evaluate data and claims and such rather than taking anybody else's word as infallible and to be accepted unquestioningly. You don't just let others take over your task of thinking and dictate your mental contents to you. We don't have to avoid all contact with the thoughts of others because just because we are exposed to an idea doesn't mean we inevitably accept it, we can still do our own assessment of ideas presented by others and decide for ourselves if they have a sound case for their claims or not. Being yourself doesn't mean having no other influences on you, it means that in regard to influences you select what you will or won't take influence from out of the many things you are exposed to. You aren't a helpless pawn of whatever you happen to encounter where there is inevitably some kind of tainting or taking over of you every time you come across something. In other words, for example, I don't have to never read a bible in order to stay myself. I can read it, assess its claims, determine the thing is whackadoodle with all kinds of senseless and unreplicatable claims, and go on my merry way not roped into being a Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Please tell me if I am wrong (not, that I would care) but isn't objectivism about beeing and end withing itself? So thinking and living independent."

As Bluecherry said above, "Independence is not a matter of being detached and impervious to the rest of the world." Ayn Rand's success, after all, depended upon people buying and reading her books. I wouldn't go so far as to say that "no man is an island", because this country does, in fact, have a colorful history that includes a few truly independent characters (mountain men, gold prospectors, etc.). But, for the most part, this "idependence" is, as Bluecherry suggests, a psychological detachment from the concerns and esteem of other men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is an important question, because Roark's "independence" is really like the one gecko describes. He is never described to be influenced by someone in his views. He somehow "knew" what exactly he wanted.

I think it is _very_ unrealistic. Every major biography I have read, geniuses talk about people that have influenced them and of the gratitude they owe them.

Edited by samr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is an important question, because Roark's "independence" is really like the one gecko describes. He is never described to be influenced by someone in his views. He somehow "knew" what exactly he wanted.

I think it is _very_ unrealistic. Every major biography I have read, geniuses talk about people that have influenced them and of the gratitude they owe them.

For what it's worth, Roark was inspired by Cameron.

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...