Young Objectivists

[Poornima]

I found Objectivism at a very impressionable age, 18, and it definitely affected my outlook on the world. I was already an idealist and had preconceived notions regarding judging people and the world. I used Objectivism to rationalize judging others harshly, and actively dimissed anyone who did not fit into the perfect Objectivist rendition of a heroic character. My psychology became composed of "shoulds", and had an almost puritannical fashion of always being productive and purposeful, pursuing only "rational values", and loving only those who were 100% rational. As one would imagine this can be an isolating experience, but I thought it was the natural course of being an Objectivist. Then I began to wonder why I wasn't happy, any why people who werent Objectivist were, or even though who were Objectivists and not as puritannical about it as me were. Thats when I realized the disconnect between using the philosophy as a guide to live ones life and issuing myself commandments. The former is a natural methodology that should be seamlessly integrated to one's life and actions, while the other borders on compulsive behavior.

It took me a few years to realize that Objectivism is just a set of principles/guidelines to live and enjoy your life, and to not beat myself up as long as I wasn't being self-destructive. But sometimes I still think that the demanding nature of my personality (being ambitious, hard-working, and introspective) conflicts with enjoying myself or establishing friendships with others.

I've been reading Edith Packer's pamphlets in order understand human psychology, as well as improve my own. But I was curious to know if anyone else has had this sort of experience, or how discovering Objectivism has impacted their transition to adulthood.

~Poornima

[LaszloWalrus]

I had similar experiences, but not as extreme as yours. (I discovered Objectivism at 16).

I think there's a tendency for those new to Objectivism to treat it as an intrincisit list of commandments, rather than a reason and principle based philosophy. It can take years to uproot and dispose of bad premises, and even more years to gain a thorough understanding of Objectivism.

[KendallJ]

I too have seen this sort of phenomena, (and experienced it). I think it comes from looking at Objectivism through the prism of pre-existing ideas. Even though we like Howard Roark, that doesn't mean we understand him. I personally, thought he was much more stoic that he really is, and as a result my early attempt to live Objectivism principles more mirrored my perception of his example than a deep understanding of the principles involved.

What actually broke that idea for me was reading an early Rand short story called "Good Copy" which is joyful and benevolent. It make me question whether I had actually come away from AS and TF with the right sort of perspective on its heros. Took another 5 years of studying the principles to even begin to believe that I "got it" (which I still didn't... )

[softwareNerd]

Apart from the types of misunderstanding or misapplications mentioned above, learning Objectivism suddenly allows one to see philosophy everywhere, and the thing that stands out is that many things one might have taken for granted, or accepted as "okay" (or even as "good") before, suddenly look bad/evil. For instance, suppose one liked a certain director's movies or a certain singer's lyrics. With a new clarity one begins to see that the movie of lyrics actually has a lot of bad elements. The same with people: I figure that's the "only if they're 100% rational" Poornima mentioned.

I think it's a phase. With time, one understands that there is good and evil in a lot of things and that the world is full of values. One does not ignore things one considers bad, but one is able to make a lightning "yeah that part's bad" judgement, and then focus on and enjoy the good. I don't know if it's a necessary phase, but it's a common one -- I know I went through it. I think how soon one gets through it depends on one's pre-existing attitudes (a.k.a. psychology) and on one's understand/misunderstanding. I think that forums like this one are responsible for speeding up the process for some people.

[JASKN]

I found Objectivism at a very impressionable age, 18, and it definitely affected my outlook on the world. I was already an idealist and had preconceived notions regarding judging people and the world. I used Objectivism to rationalize judging others harshly, and actively dimissed anyone who did not fit into the perfect Objectivist rendition of a heroic character. My psychology became composed of "shoulds", and had an almost puritannical fashion of always being productive and purposeful, pursuing only "rational values", and loving only those who were 100% rational.

[...]

It took me a few years to realize that Objectivism is just a set of principles/guidelines to live and enjoy your life, and to not beat myself up as long as I wasn't being self-destructive.

[...]

I was curious to know if anyone else has had this sort of experience, or how discovering Objectivism has impacted their transition to adulthood.

I had a very similar experience, with a slight twist: I was heavily influenced by my childhood religion. When I discovered Ayn Rand, I went through an ironic period of trying to adopt her ideas to my life while simultaneously accepting a lot of it from her authority. Essentially, I replaced God with Rand!

My idea of an "ideal Objectivist" was altered considerably (for the better) after hanging around this forum for a while. I had the opportunity to witness firsthand Rand's principles applied properly in "real life" people. In my case, softwareNerd's comment about the forum is true.

As far as Objectivism and my life as a new adult goes, I think I am undoubtedly at an advantage over my peers. An introspector myself, Objectivist principles continually help me to hone my thinking, and to learn new ways to achieve greater happiness!

[BinniLee]

Yeah, I think being a Objectivists kinda makes you stick out and notice alot more things and judge thinks in a much more organized manner, especially in art. Like I was watching Garden State and I remember I was upset and wanted to discuss a certain comment made by one of the characters, That went something like "imagine he is fighting for his right to build a mall on this geological phenomina" My friends didn't pay any attention too it and were suprised by my reaction. Furthermore instead of thinking the first naturalistic Icelandic novel I had to read for Icelandic literature 403 was just boring I was almost tortured by reading it.

Maybe all art is alot more meaningful too Objectivists then non-philosophical people.

[Cogito]

Maybe all art is alot more meaningful too Objectivists then non-philosophical people.

I think, in general (though not at all without exception), all life is a lot more meaningful to Objectivists than to non-philosophic people.

[Mimpy]

I discovered Objectivism when I was 14. In the beginning I did take it almost as a list of commandments without really understanding the reason and philosophy behind each stance. I quickly remedied this problem when I realized I would try to explain to someone why I believed something without really knowing why I believed it myself besides that it was something Ayn Rand would say. Since then I have read significantly more Objectivist texts and tend to not take a stance on something (even if I know the Objectivist stance on it peripherally) without really understanding it myself.

As for being influenced by the TF and AS heroes, I am definitely guilty of that. I tried to be reserved and taciturn like Roark. I realized that it was just not my personality. I like to talk, I like to interact with others, I like being social, much more than Roark, at least. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

[Poornima]

Its funny that you should mention art because I was thinking about that too. I have always been overly critical of works of art even before I discovered Objectivism. And I wonder if at times I'm making the right judgment about a movie or book in terms of appreciating it despite its philosophical message. I'm often overly critical or dismissive if the artwork's theme has a negative sense of life, philosophical message, or the characters have too many vices.

Take for example the movie Prestige vs. The Illusionist. I really disliked the Prestige because the characters were complete second handers and spent their entire lives and careers obsessing over one another instead of enjoying life with loved ones. They became all-consumed in their pursuit to destroy each other, and lost all that they valued in the process. Unlike in the Illusionist, where Edward Norton's character had so much integrity and passion for life, that he would not stop until he achieved his values but did so in a just manner. So the character's sense of life in the Prestige really affected my overall evaluation of the move, even though as a piece I know the acting and movie-making was well done.

~Poornima

[Tenure]

I'm 17 and only recently got into the whole subject of Objectivism. I came from a background that went roughy: Ambivalent Anglican, Agnostic, Atheist, Confident Atheist, Militant Atheist (notice that it was the atheism that I allowed to become my defining philosophy), Socialist, Anarchist, Hedonist, Dutiful-Stoic. I've been a very impressionable youth, but I'm quite confident that after my hellish years of adolescence, where I've gone through some VERY bizarre phases, that I've finally arrived at a Philosophy that actually makes sense. Before, I'd make a lot of leaps of logic to defend rather strange ideals. I'm now on my road to trying to understand how Objectivism really integrates with my life.

Edit: Just to clarify, 'dutiful-stoic' is not where I am now. It was where I was at before I started getting into Rand.

I'm also interested to know the results of people studying via the induction method of Objectivism, and how long it took them to snap out of the superficial-Objectivism that a lot of us seem to come at it with.

I came here pretty soon after reading The Fountainhead a few months ago - fascinated by all the concepts I'd read, and eager to understand how it all integrates. The thing is, I love systems, and learning how everything fits together and how everything works. Unlike a friend of mine, who gets bored once he's learned the trick to something, I get more and more inquisitive about these things, which probably saved me from falling into the trap of saying "Ok, Objectivism says 'X is good, Y is bad, because of Axiom Z, etc etc".

Instead, I'm trying to find out how one can learn via the induction method without having to travel (for me) 4000 miles to the ARI. If I start to study via textbooks and the likes, I will have to constantly spend more and more time here searching for threads where people have discussed problems that I'm having.

I think it's important, most of all, to trust yourself. One of the lines that I love from AS is somewhere along the lines of "We see life as being full of hope, rather than calamity". I read that as saying I should just be willing to act, and to trust myself, and if I screw up, to accept that screw ups do happen, but that they do not have to define me; i.e. one shouldn't feel guilty because they can't act with a fully-integrated system of Objectivism from the get go, nor should they decide simply not to live their lives until they've mastered the subject.

On the subject of Arts: Yeah, I've found the same thing. I really like My Chemical Romance, but I recently went to see them live and... it just did nothing for me. The whole thing was such a joke. I spent the second half of the gig just sitting against a wall, trying to understand why I couldn't enjoy these songs anymore. It was just... so nihilistic. The guy talks about moving through depression and trying to help people with his songs, but then he focuses on his attention on just being as nihilistic as possible.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Tenure

[Poornima]

I think it's important, most of all, to trust yourself. One of the lines that I love from AS is somewhere along the lines of "We see life as being full of hope, rather than calamity". I read that as saying I should just be willing to act, and to trust myself, and if I screw up, to accept that screw ups do happen, but that they do not have to define me; i.e. one shouldn't feel guilty because they can't act with a fully-integrated system of Objectivism from the get go, nor should they decide simply not to live their lives until they've mastered the subject.

You're absolutely right about lacking full knowledge, and how that shouldn't stifle your decision making, but instead apply the principles to the best of our knowledge. Its hard because there seems to be a desire for omniscience before making a decision, which I believe is motivated by self-doubt or the fear of making the wrong decision. As Objectivists we realize how much of an impact choices have on our life long-term, but being young means we don't have many experiences to derive knowledge from so we fear that we maybe making the wrong decision. I'm wondering how often this is the case, versus being precocious and thinking that we have all the answers before we've fully understood the philosophy. I think in my own experience its been a little of both.

[Tenure]

Indeed. This is one of the main factors, for myself, in joining the forum. I want to be around people who are Objectivists and do have experience which I can learn from. Learning from their successes and mistakes can benefit oneself immensely, especially in a world where the people that you think of as being great (Hugh Laurie, would be my example) are also manically depressed.

I think its nice, with all the chaos and isolation of youth, to be able to come to a place like this where you can see people around your age also, who have gone through the same events as you, and who share the same hopes and fears as you.