Seeking insights on Objectivism: Benefits and misconceptions

[KeerthiEva]

Dear community,

 I have some questions related to Objectivism and would appreciate your insights. Despite the criticisms it often receives, I am curious to learn more about the potential benefits and misconceptions surrounding Objectivism.

What are some positive aspects or benefits of Objectivism that you have personally experienced or observed? Are there any misconceptions or misunderstandings about Objectivism that you believe should be addressed or clarified?

Thank You.

[Boydstun]

KE,

Any advance in understanding the world and one's place in it as the human animal is part of a person, and in that broad sense of the personal, I'd say that for me Rand's drawing out of a thing I'd somehow known but not explicitly was beneficial: that life is the final end in itself. In terms of benefit to understanding, I'd say also Rand's discovery that and how life—focally, individual human life—is the arena and ultimate basis of any value or meaningfulness. Also of personal benefit, in the broad sense of the personal, for me, is Rand's main timbers for metaphysics: Existence is identity; consciousness is identification (focally, of existents). This is a good frame for examinations of other wide frameworks in which I for one have a life-long interest in knowing, from the Greeks to the present.

In the narrower and more usual sense of the personal, for me, that benefit came when I was a young man, about five decades ago and continues to old age: mental health. In particular, learning that (i) rationality in one's thought, values, and action suffices for authentic value, and (ii) the goodness of loving oneself, esteeming oneself.

Concerning misconceptions of Objectivism, two come to mind: that it is primarily a political viewpoint, and that it can be adopted simultaneously with holding onto some belief in the supernatural.

These are good questions, and I'm looking forward to what others at this site have to say on them.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Boydstun

[EC]

Of course there is a simple and easy way to resolve any false "criticisms" or "misconceptions" of Objectivism, simply read the Objectivist corpus. Start with Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand which eloquently, beautifully, and systematically lays out the entire philosophy from metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and art. And then go from there reading The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, etc., and then go from there. One would then possess no misconceptions and would have an excellent starting base to ask appropriate questions about anything they still do not understand yet.

[DavidOdden]

As I see it, the most important point made in Objectivism is the “primacy of existence”. Nature is and does what it does, regardless of your beliefs about Nature. But you can use your consciousness to understand Nature. The “primacy” part means that your consciousness should conform to reality, and simply wishing doesn’t make it so.

“Bare” Nature is malleable. Houses don’t just appear because of the invisible hand of Nature, a consciousness has to choose particular actions that bring houses into existence. Snakes and dogs are incapable of that kind of technology – why can’t they build? They lack the knowledge tools. A central contribution of Objectivism is an understanding of “knowledge”, and how it is that we get from observed facts to choices. We can observe properties of trees, and properties of rocks, and integrate that knowledge reaching the conclusion that we can create lumber. More observation and integration leads us to the conclusion that we can (and knowledge how) build houses. Other observations and integration lead to a moral code whereby we should build houses (in order to survive).

In short, Objectivism puts consciousness and existence in the right order.

[tadmjones]

Rand could be described as a 'radical for integration' right along with the other famous similar self-styled moniker of 'radical for capitalism'.

And I think the critiques of O'ism that tend to paint it as a 'politically' or 'morally' focused system come from a lack of understanding of what are the strongest points ie epistemological.

[KeerthiEva]

16 hours ago, Boydstun said:

KE,

Any advance in understanding the world and one's place in it as the human animal is part of a person, and in that broad sense of the personal, I'd say that for me Rand's drawing out of a thing I'd somehow known but not explicitly was beneficial: that life is the final end in itself. In terms of benefit to understanding, I'd say also Rand's discovery that and how life—focally, individual human life—is the arena and ultimate basis of any value or meaningfulness. Also of personal benefit, in the broad sense of the personal, for me, is Rand's main timbers for metaphysics: Existence is identity; consciousness is identification (focally, of existents). This is a good frame for examinations of other wide frameworks in which I for one have a life-long interest in knowing, from the Greeks to the present.

In the narrower and more usual sense of the personal, for me, that benefit came when I was a young man, about five decades ago and continues to old age: mental health. In particular, learning that (i) rationality in one's thought, values, and action suffices for authentic value, and (ii) the goodness of loving oneself, esteeming oneself.

Concerning misconceptions of Objectivism, two come to mind: that it is primarily a political viewpoint, and that it can be adopted simultaneously with holding onto some belief in the supernatural.

These are good questions, and I'm looking forward to what others at this site have to say on them.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences with Ayn Rand's ideas and Objectivism. It's interesting to hear how her writings have had a personal and broad impact on your understanding of life and your place in the world. NJMCDirect is an online ticket payment portal that helps to make the ticket payment to Municipal Court of New Jersey by logging on to www.njmcdirect.com. 
 

[Doug Morris]

Another misconception, to quote one source I read, is that Ayn Rand "hates charity".  She has stated explicitly that there is nothing wrong with helping others provided you can afford it and they are worthy of the help.  What she objects to is the idea that helping others is an obligation or a primary virtue.

On 12/5/2023 at 12:32 PM, tadmjones said:

Rand could be described as a 'radical for integration'

To make sure there is no misunderstanding, this refers to epistemological integration, not mathematical or racial integration.  Although Ayn Rand was strongly opposed to racism.

Ayn Rand was also opposed to government coercion in connection with any of the topics mentioned in my post here.  She thought that government should only be used as a defense against the initiation of direct or indirect physical force.  This is more fully explained in her writings.

 

[EC]

Why was the suggestion to simply read the beginning corpus that I listed, and then go from there, something that would take an average reader less than two weeks to clear up misconceptions appreciated? 

This is the problem, people won't read and begin to integrate the philosophy themselves and instead want to build up some type of light "understanding" piecemeal and in random out of context and hierarchy via third person "interpretations" of others (second-handedness) (no matter how accurate or well intentioned in general, especially by the more articulate) instead of simply going straight to the original extremely well-written and amazingly easy to understand source for their own start at the integration of the ideas, step-by-step proofs, and knowledge presented.

[Doug Morris]

33 minutes ago, EC said:

Why was the suggestion to simply read the beginning corpus that I listed, and then go from there, something that would take an average reader less than two weeks to clear up misconceptions appreciated? 

This is the problem, people won't read and begin to integrate the philosophy themselves and instead want to build up some type of light "understanding" piecemeal and in random out of context and hierarchy via third person "interpretations" of others (second-handedness) (no matter how accurate or well intentioned in general, especially by the more articulate) instead of simply going straight to the original extremely well-written and amazingly easy to understand source for their own start at the integration of the ideas, step-by-step proofs, and knowledge presented.

While this is the best way for them to learn it, they may be reluctant to start until some specific questions and concerns are answered or an overview is given.

 

[EC]

1 minute ago, Doug Morris said:

While this is the best way for them to learn it, they may be reluctant to start until some specific questions and concerns are answered or an overview is given.

 

Agreed, but it's just hard to answer questions and misconceptions that jump around at random while dropping context is my point. A read through of OPAR "sets the appropriate stage" and context for appropriate discussion. It's how I began.

[EC]

A lot of the misconceptions are political in nature, but that starts way too high up the conceptual chain dropping the appropriate context of the ethics that lead to the correct politics, the epistemology that leads to the correct ethics, and the metaphysics that leads to the correct epistemology. They mostly want to deal in floating abstractions instead of fully integrated thought. It's very limiting and concrete-bound and leads essentially nowhere because the objections are all eliminated when one starts from the source that A is A and existence exists and systematically works through the conceptual hierarchy. Of course, as this forum shows there can be real disagreement on how to apply the higher abstract concepts to concrete events via principles but one can't reach that type of in context principled discussion while randomly starting at some concrete floating abstraction, in general. It's like speaking to people who are speaking a version of English where every word or concept can also mean something different or its complete opposite depending on their mood or whim. They don't have the context and specifically the correct in-context definitions of terms, words, and concepts to have an accurate conversation.

[EC]

And to go one step further, they confuse words which can slowly change general popular meaning with concepts that have universal correct objective in-context definitions. If the general population randomly decided tomorrow to start referring to the concept of a table by some random different word it in no manner would effect what the concept of a table actually is and means and how it is created. A lot of their discussions rely on out-of-context words taken from current "popular culture" instead of referring to the correct actual concepts in the appropriate context. A good example is when they take the definition of capitalism to mean everything that it doesn't instead of the appropriate concept of the sociopolitical system that exists solely to protect individual rights via private property and instead change it into some other random meaning incorporating concepts that are its complete opposite.

[Eiuol]

On 12/6/2023 at 12:21 AM, KeerthiEva said:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences with Ayn Rand's ideas and Objectivism. It's interesting to hear how her writings have had a personal and broad impact on your understanding of life and your place in the world. NJMCDirect is an online ticket payment portal that helps to make the ticket payment to Municipal Court of New Jersey by logging on to www.njmcdirect.com. 
 

Because of this link at the bottom, I'm quite confident that this is AI generated content. The response is wildly generic.

[Boydstun]

13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I'm quite confident that this is AI generated content.

When visiting a big city or San Francisco, some people give alms to bums who come on with a really elaborate cock-and-bull story of their plight. The handout is for quality of the lie, not for human need. No creative, elaborate tale? then no handout. The dissemblances being put to this site, particularly in questions by "new members", should not win reward of Oz's need for running down the site by responses to faux often-banal questions unless they put on a really good dissemblance to the point of seeming closely like a real live person. For my part, I'll take a break from answering any questions.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Boydstun