Is there a "puritanical streak" among Objectivists?

[Hank Rearden]

I am relatively new to the philosophy of Objectivism, but I have already observed what Leonard Peikoff calls a "...puritanical streak in many Objectivists." While he was not referring to this website when he made this statement (the context of which will be presented below), I have seen it in these message boards--specifically dealing with the issues of alcohol use and sexuality.

Since the copyright of Leonard Peikoff explicitly requests that none of his material be reproduced without permission, I will simply post the user-submitted questions from www.Peikoff.com that address these issues. Please navigate to the website and read his interesting responses. If the reproduction of the user-submitted questions on this discussion board violates copyright laws, I request that the administrator remove them and notify me so I may rephrase my post in a cogent manner.

Question 1:

Q: I am in college and thought that I understood Objectivism but now I'm confused. I was talking with a bunch of Objectivists who say that smoking is immoral because it is bad for your health, and drinking is immoral because it "fakes reality" by dulling your mind. Is that true? I don't smoke but I never thought that smoking made someone immoral.

A: [see website]

Question 2:

Q: The question is simple: a mere “Y” or “N” keystroke would suffice. Is sex proper only between two people who are deeply, passionately, romantically in love?

A: [see website]

I am choosing not to point out specific examples from this forum because I am more interested in your responses to Peikoff's statements than to my observations, which may be subjective.

[DavidOdden]

I agree entirely with Peikoff. You would have to get an explanation from one of the puritans, but I imagine it would focus on their views of the actual effects of alcohol. It may well be that a half an ounce of whisky does destroy their minds, in which case it would be a rational conclusion for them that alcohol is an evil.

And btw your level of quoting is entirely appropriate -- that which is necessary to coherently advance the question.

[intellectualammo]

I am relatively new to the philosophy of Objectivism, but I have already observed what Leonard Peikoff calls a "...puritanical streak in many Objectivists."

I have as well. If I hadn't've finished the rest of my fifth of Smirnoff already tonight, I would surely have toasted to this thread! Hell, I would have also toasted to that beautiful, sometimes forgotten, but far less understood word: "contextual".

[softwareNerd]

There are some who misinterpret Objectivism as being puritanical. Others misinterpret Objectivism as being hedonistic.

[KendallJ]

I think this is a hasty generalization. As Snerd said, some are, some aren't.

I was in a chat session a few months ago where we were serving up "virtual drinks" and I only counted 1 Puritan in the group.

[JMeganSnow]

I also agree that there are quite a few quasi-puritans hanging around. I've been accused of it myself because I have very strict ideas on just how far you can stretch "emergency license". It's easy to feel that a situation is an emergency and thus you have to do what you have to do. Real emergencies of that nature are few and far between. I have a few guesses for why it comes about:

1. Failure to concretize an idea arrived at through deduction.

2. Ignoring context. (as was already indicated)

3. Generalizing from self. While this can be useful in some aspects it is not always accurate.

[Adrian Hester]

I am relatively new to the philosophy of Objectivism, but I have already observed what Leonard Peikoff calls a "...puritanical streak in many Objectivists." While he was not referring to this website when he made this statement (the context of which will be presented below), I have seen it in these message boards--specifically dealing with the issues of alcohol use and sexuality.

Since the copyright of Leonard Peikoff explicitly requests that none of his material be reproduced without permission, I will simply post the user-submitted questions from www.Peikoff.com that address these issues. Please navigate to the website and read his interesting responses.

For ease of searching, I'll just add that the first quote is the second question posted on November 1, 2006, and the second is the first question posted on March 12, 2007.

[Wotan]

Hank: Yes. Peikoff has it. So do you. Too much Vulcan, not enough Klingon.

[Tabitha]

I don't think the word "puritanical" is apt. To ask if there's a "puritanical streak" among Objectivists is like asking if there's a "reason streak" among Objectivists. Most of behaviors that are so-called "puritanical" are basic common sense to me. "Puritanical" behaviors, as defined by any action that promotes health and well being, should be the default. There's something about the word "puritanical" that implies a need for defense or justification, when in fact, almost everything that qualifies as puritantical stems from reason. Using alcohol responsibly, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, and not engaging in risky sexual activity should be norms, whereas hedonism or other forms of "non puritanicalism" (irrationality) should be the subject matter under the microscope.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Tabitha

[BinniLee]

*Toasts cheap vodka to the futility of life*

Wait; wrong forum.

[Robert J. Kolker]

I don't think the word "puritanical" is apt. To ask if there's a "puritanical streak" among Objectivists is like asking if there's a "reason streak" among Objectivists. Most of behaviors that are so-called "puritanical" are basic common sense to me. "Puritanical" behaviors, as defined by any action that promotes health and well being, should be the default. There's something about the word "puritanical" that implies a need for defense or justification, when in fact, almost everything that qualifies as puritantical stems from reason. Using alcohol responsibly, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, and not engaging in risky sexual activity should be norms, whereas hedonism or other forms of "non puritanicalism" (irrationality) should be the subject matter under the microscope.

The distinction should be between the Apollonian and the Dionesian

Bob Kolker

[Tabitha]

The distinction should be between the Apollonian and the Dionesian

Bob Kolker

You're right; that's more of what I was getting at. Also, "Puritan" has religious connocations (in which case, it would also be incorrect to associate Puritanism with Objectivism).

Edited June 13, 2007 by Tabitha

[JMeganSnow]

To ask if there's a "puritanical streak" among Objectivists is like asking if there's a "reason streak" among Objectivists. Most of behaviors that are so-called "puritanical" are basic common sense to me.

So, you consider it to be common sense to spend your life in absolute, strict self-denial, wearing only black clothing, eating only the absolute minimum, refusing any luxuries and turning aside from all personal desires because that's "against the rules"? This is what is meant by referring to people as "puritanical", not strict adherence to principle. ACTUAL strict adherence to Objectivist principles turns people into benevolent, friendly, relaxed people that enjoy a good time. (Although they probably have very many different methods of having a good time.) Strict adherence to out-of-context "Objectivist" principles means that people become afraid to enjoy themselves because it might not be the correct "sanctioned" method of enjoyment.

You can see the results of this, which is basically rationalism applied to ethics, all over the forum in questions such as: "is it okay for me to become a professional poker player?" or "is it okay for me to enjoy the occasional glass of wine?" or "is it okay for me to like Beethoven or rock and roll?" or "is it okay for me to act 'metrosexual'?" or "is it okay for me to hate wearing a tie?" or "is it okay for me to like men with long hair?" For any non-rationalist Objectivist, the answer to ALL these questions is either "sure!" or (if they're really on the ball) "Okay in what context?" It is having a strong conviction that there is an absolute "no" to any of these questions in all contexts that is defined as "puritannical". These questions constitute the realm of the morally optional.

There is absolutely no rational reason to discard any of those actions out of hand. It gets tricker when you get into questions like, "is it okay for me to lie to someone in an emergency?" and "is it okay for me to sleep with someone I don't plan on spending the rest of my life with?" Objections here may have some rational or semi-rational basis and it can be very, very difficult to sort out: strong absolute "no's" in this area may be a sign of rationalism but is not entirely "puritannical". These questions constitute the realm of moral applications and two people may come up with different answers to the same question via rational process.

Then you get into the next level of questions, such as "is it okay for me to download music illegally?" or "is it okay for me to be a prudent predator?" or "is it okay for me to advocate statism?" These questions directly contravene a moral principle. There is no moral option to them at all, they are unequivocally wrong and have nothing to do with being "puritannical".

It's quite simple to take a look at questions on the forum that fall into the first category and to see puritanical behavior among self-proclaimed Objectivists, hence there are at least some Objectivists that constitute a "puritanical streak". I postulate that you will get at least some people like this in any ideology that is not some form of moral relativism . . . I suppose you could call them "dogmatists" instead of "puritans" if that term suits you better. Actually, I take that back, I know dogmatic moral relativists, too, and that is just weird.

[Hank Rearden]

Jennifer,

I enjoyed your thoughtful response.

[MisterSwig]

In my experience the so-called "puritanical Objectivists" are confused intrinsicists who believe they are Objectivists. They don't really understand what the "objective" in objective values means, so they fall back on their habit of intrinsicism, which they probably picked up from religion. Hence their similarity to Puritans.

Unfortunately, there's not much you can do to help these people, except to point out instances where the same thing (value) is good for one person yet bad for another. They need to see a concrete example that exposes their intrinsicism and lack of objectivity.

[Tabitha]

So, you consider it to be common sense to spend your life in absolute, strict self-denial, wearing only black clothing, eating only the absolute minimum, refusing any luxuries and turning aside from all personal desires because that's "against the rules"? This is what is meant by referring to people as "puritanical", not strict adherence to principle. ACTUAL strict adherence to Objectivist principles turns people into benevolent, friendly, relaxed people that enjoy a good time.

Right; as already discussed, I was (inaccurately) mixing "puritan" and "Appolonian."

Edited June 14, 2007 by Tabitha

[JMeganSnow]

Right; as already discussed, I was (inaccurately) mixing "puritan" and "Appolonian."

Yeah, I noticed that, I wasn't meaning to attack you.

[Marc K.]

The distinction should be between the Apollonian and the Dionesian

I guess I'm not as well read as the rest of you. Would you mind elaborating?

[Robert J. Kolker]

I guess I'm not as well read as the rest of you. Would you mind elaborating?

The Greeks associated the god Apollo with reason and calm judgment. Dionesyeus was the Greek god of the Grape, Drinking Singing, Dancing and having a foot stomping, hand-clapping good time. Contrast attending a lecture in mathematics with attending a rock festival. Using these labels applies to personality and inclination. No one is purely one or the other. All or most of us are mixtures. I think Ayn Rand might have mentioned these characteristics in one of her articles in -The Objectivist- (I guess that dates me!).

Bob Kolker

[JMeganSnow]

I guess I'm not as well read as the rest of you. Would you mind elaborating?

Ayn Rand draws the parallels in some of her essays about the Apollo missions; they're reprinted in Voice of Reason. I would disagree with Mr. Kolker's analysis, though.

Dionysian, in the sense that Ayn Rand used it, means that someone has given themselves over to mindless hedonism: it is not revelry, but specifically the abandonment of rational functioning, that is characteristic of Dionysian behavior. It is not something that you want to admit into your character in any quantity.

Apollonian, on the other hand, means someone that is given over to rational pursuits, to the exercise of their highest capacities. We should all aspire to be perfectly Apollonian; it does not mean that you can't relax and enjoy recreation. Relaxation and recreation are rational activities in context.

She wasn't addressing the issue of dogmatism/intrinsicism at the time, so one should not construe her Apollo/Dionysias metaphor as being the traditional false dichotomy between intrinsicism and subjectivism, or (in ethics) between puritanism and hedonism. She was only explaining the difference between Objectivism and hedonism.

[D'kian]

I can see why some people studying Objectivism could adopt a puritanical streak.

Take me, for example. last year I went to Orlando on my annual vacation. This year I'm staying hmoe, because I decided I wanted a new PC more than a trip. I'd like to have a new PC and make a trip, but I can't afford both. That's a rational choice between options (I might ahve stuck with my old clunker for another year, after all). But it can be seen as denying myself a pleasure in order to reach some other goal. That would be wrong, because I chose what in my judgement made me happier.

Also, in the novels the main characters are dedicated to their work. They labor for long hours every day and we see only a few moments of relaxation and enjoyment. Some Objectivist neophytes come to think it's a sin not to spend every waking moment working.

And then there are individual peculiarities. Again taking myself as an example, I find many of the more common recreational activities to be quite insupportable (I also consider myself to be very eccentric). So in high school when my peers would go dancing or were out getting drunk, I stayed home and read, watched movies or watched TV.

Again, I was doing that which makes me happy. I was not making an effort to stay away from night clubs and bars, no more than I ever make an effort no to jump from the highest building I can find. Being cooped up in a dark place with noise played at levels sure to cause ear dammage is not my idea of fun, more like my idea of hell. I do like having a few drinks with friends, and I know a few quiet bars where one can enjoy a good white wine vodka sangria, or a traditional margarita, and conversation.

I don't enjoy parties, either (too much noise masquerading as music played too loudly), or most movies made these days (do I need to explain?), or the latest fad "art" exhibit, or long pointless drives in the countryside (I can see the attraction, I just don't enjoy it; but I do enjoy the scenery when I have to travel to nearby towns on business). So I find myself asked "Why don't you ever want to have any fun?" and I swear I feel like Roark must have felt the time someone called him "fanatical and selfless."

[Tabitha]

Yeah, I noticed that, I wasn't meaning to attack you.

Sorry for my short response. (This is exactly why I shouldn't check these boards in the morning when I'm rushed for work. I always get compelled to respond, even if my response comes out so much more half-assed than it would have if I'd forced myself to wait until I had more time to think and write...!)

Edited June 14, 2007 by Tabitha

[Tabitha]

Woodstock was the Dionysian example given by Rand. Her critisism was that the goal of it was to numb the mind, as it was flagrantly pro-drug and little much of anything else. Rand was all for enjoyment. The thing is that true enjoyment comes only from the pursuit and attainment of values. (It's difficult to value anything when your faculties aren't intact, as in the case of Woodstock, but that's besides the point.)

Edited June 14, 2007 by Tabitha

[Capitalism Forever]

I was not making an effort to stay away from night clubs and bars, no more than I ever make an effort no to jump from the highest building I can find.

An excellent analogy.

The distinction to make is not really between "pro-fun" and "anti-fun" but between someone who pursues values and someone who denies himself his values. I see both working and drinking a glass of good wine as pursuing my values; I would hate to deny myself the former by spending a whole night "partying" as much as I would hate to deny myself the latter by becoming a "Puritan."

The thing is that true enjoyment comes only from the pursuit and attainment of values.

Just noticed this after I posted the above. Right on!