What is Objectivism?

[jwinkler]

I was drawn to this forum based on some neat comments about evolution and ID. After reading on, and looking on Wikipedia, as one of the discussions suggested, I truly do not understand what objectivism is. Are all objectivists atheists?

[Maarten]

Yes, they are.

Oh, and welcome to the forum

[y_feldblum]

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was a writer and a philosopher, and in her novels she portrayed heroes pursuing and achieving the extraordinary in the face of a society bent on eradicating everything great. She dramatized the scurrying nature of such a society, and how even in the face of it, the pursuit of lifelong goals and happiness is not only possible, but easy. She wrote The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and I highly recommend reading both books, in that order. I recommend them primarily as great and inspiring fiction, as I would recommend Alexandre Dumas's The Count of Monte Cristo, and secondarily as an expression of Ayn Rand's philosophy, which is expressed more completely in later books and essays.

As a philosopher, Ayn Rand denounced the figures of ancient and modern philosophy who said that the world doesn't exist, or that even if the world exists, it's nothing compared to the supernatural world. She denounced those who said that people can't know anything at all, or that people are incapable of abstract knowledge, and those who said that even if people are capable of abstract knowledge, that knowledge has no connection to reality. She denounced those philosophers who said that you are evil regardless, or that the good consists of dedicating your whole life to the service of others, of people you will never meet, of your worst enemies, and even of animals or plants or rocks, and she denounced those who said that the good consists of robbing your neighbors blind every chance you get, of living by the sword and taking what you want without ever creating anything. She denounced socialism as a system of enslaving each man to those around him, instead of freeing each man to exist on his own terms.

She affirmed that this world exists, and only this world. She affirmed that we are indeed capable of knowing about this world, and even of abstract knowledge about this world. She affirmed that it is actually good to pursue values and happiness, and that there is no call to throw one's own lifelong happiness out the window just because some dictator, or some beggar, wants you to. And she affirmed that capitalism is the only political system which permits people to pursue values.

Yes, all Objectivists are atheists. ("Objectivist" is capitalized because Objectivism is a proper noun referring to a particular person's, Ayn Rand's, philosphy, not to a whole school of philosophy which just goes by a general name. This is comparable to calling someone an Aristotelian or a Platonist or a Hegelian or a Kantian or an Augustinian, instead of calling him a realist or a monist or a naturalist or an atheist or a deontologist.) Objectivists are atheists because they do not take anything on faith. They do not take the Bible on faith, or God on faith, or the flying spaghetti monster on faith. One cannot know anything about reality by reading what the Bible says. By Ayn Rand's philosophy, one can only form knowledge by observing reality and applying logic to one's observations.

[softwareNerd]

Here is a very brief "intro to Objectivism" on the Ayn Rand Institute web-site.

[Bold Standard]

I was drawn to this forum based on some neat comments about evolution and ID. After reading on, and looking on Wikipedia, as one of the discussions suggested, I truly do not understand what objectivism is. Are all objectivists atheists?

Here is a brief excerpt from a letter Ayn Rand wrote to US congressman Bruce Alger in 1963, which I think sums up her position on atheism nicely (italics in original):

I am an intransigent atheist, though not a militant one. This means that I am not fighting against religion—I am fighting for reason. When faith and reason clash, it is up to the religious people to decide how they choose to reconcile the conflict.

Ayn Rand was primarily an ethical philosopher (qua philosopher), although her philosophy was systematic, and includes material in metaphysics, epistemology, politics, and aesthetics as well.

[Edit: Oops, I edited out something comparing the capitalization of Skepticism vs skepticism, comparing it to Objectivism vs objectivism, that David Odden has now quoted below. I didn't think anyone was watching. : P I'd just wanted to give another example where capitalizing or not capitalizing a philosophical term would make a big difference in the way the term is percieved.]

Edited December 10, 2006 by Bold Standard

[Bold Standard]

One cannot know anything about reality by reading what the Bible says.

I think this might be somewhat of an overstatement as worded. What we call "the Bible" is quite a disparate compilation of documents spanning a considerably vast amount of time. At least, comparing with other sources we have from similar time periods, I think one can learn some real historical information from studying the Bible. And beyond that, like similar documents from other cultures, many of the proverbs and prinicples outlined in the Bible are true of reality (there is some common sense stuff in there). However, if what you meant is that it's impossible to study scriptures and then rationalistically deduce knowledge from it without observing reality, then I'd certainly agree with you. [bTW, interesting attempt at summarizing Objectivism, y_feldblum. A lot of info in those paragraphs.] Edited December 10, 2006 by Bold Standard

[DavidOdden]

Capitalizing Skepticism identifies it as a philosophical school, and provides it with a significantly different meaning than skepticism (uncapitalized) has in every day language.

An interesting example. If I were to see a text taking about Skepticism, then I would presume that they had in mind a particular and definite philosophical system, whereas if they talked about skepticism, then I'd think they were talking about a general trend or way of thinking of things, without attributing many particular essential attributes to it. The Stanford Encyclopedia article is particularly interesting in how is mixes the capitalized proper name use, referring to particular schools (such as Pyrrhonian Skepticism), and the uncapitalized general concept variety for "skepticism, in general". Since there isn't really any such school of thought as "Skepticism" anymore, it's most common to either find a qualifier such as "Pyrrhonian Skepticism", "Academic Skepticism". Capitalizing "Objectivism" then emphasizes the fact that it is a definite philosophy, and keeping the name free of limiting expressions emphasizes the fact that there is only one philosophy "Objectivism", not a bunch of specific and distinct philosophies.

[DavidOdden]

I agree that one cannot know anything about reality by reading what the Bible says. It may be the case that some actual facts are stated in the Bible (for example other than the claims that rabbits chew their cud, insects have 4 legs, the world is flat, π=3, the Sun rotates around the Earth), but there is no way to distinguish true sentences from false sentences, by reading the Bible. Post hoc, you may discover that there are some factually correct sentences in the Bible, but they aren't labeled as such.

[Bold Standard]

I agree that one cannot know anything about reality by reading what the Bible says.

Maybe I'm just being way too literal, but isn't knowing what the Bible says in itself learning a fact of reality? The Bible does exist in reality. I disagree that there is no way to distinguish true sentences from false sentences in the Bible (although I grant that they are not explicitly labeled, and that they are sometimes intentionally equivocated). I do it the same way I distinguish true sentences from false sentences in Norse proverbs, the writings of Confucius, or the New York Times--a heavy dose of independent critical thinking, comparing the statements to my own knowledge derived from percieving reality, never taking anything on faith.

[y_feldblum]

There is a jolly fat man called Santa Claus at the north pole, and he and his trusty bunch of elves are manufacturing presents for all the good little children of the world.

By reading The Jolly Red Book, are you learning about reality? Are you learning all about Santa Claus, the elves, and the north pole, which are the description of reality given in The Jolly Red Book?

True, by reading The Jolly Red Book you learn the specific fact that The Jolly Red Book says: <...> - but what one means by saying, "One cannot know anything about reality by reading what The Jolly Red Book has to say," is that the description of reality in that book is arbitrary and that all that reading that book tells you is that the book tells you arbitrary assertions.

In other words, I think you are "just being way too literal"

[DavidOdden]

Maybe I'm just being way too literal, but isn't knowing what the Bible says in itself learning a fact of reality?

You're right, I hadn't thought of it that way. By reading, you can learn that the American Standard translation of 1Kings 7:23 says "And he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and the height thereof was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits compassed it round about" and the same passage in the King James version sayeth "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about".

[ed: Eh. Step away from the keyboard for a bit, and Y. makes the point too]

Edited December 11, 2006 by DavidOdden