Is egoism all it takes to become and Objectivist?

[Dingbat]

Potential spoilers to The Fountainhead below.

I want to commit my mind to Objectivism. I want to cross-check my idea of what being an Objectivist is with this forum. I’m almost done The Fountainhead, and I’m finding that becoming an Objectivist requires one to, essentially, uphold egoism. Howard Roark, being the embodiment of Objectivism, is an egoist. So, by understanding how Roark is an egoist and following his general example, I can aspire to embody Objectivism.

Roark’s concerned only with his own values, such as architecture, and doesn’t let anything else, any belief in social obligation, bribery or social opinion, matter. His’s method of this is revealed in these two speeches by Gail Wynand to him:

“And then I thought of you. I thought that you weren’t touched by any of it. Not in any way. The national convention of advertisers doesn’t exist as far as you’re concerned. It’s in some sort of fourth dimension that can never establish any communication with you at all. I thought of that-and I felt a peculiar kind of relief” [Rand, The Fountainhead, 544].

“And then I looked at that kitten. And I thought that it didn’t know the things I loathed, it could never know. It was clean-clean in the absolute sense because it had no capacity to conceive of the world’s ugliness. I can’t tell you what relief there was in trying to imagine the state of consciousness inside that little brain, …” [Ibid.].

And one by Roark to Peter Keating:

““You’ll get everything society can give a man. You’ll keep all the money. You’ll take any fame or honor anyone might want to grant. You’ll accept such gratitude as the tenants might feel. And I-I’ll take what nobody can give a man, except himself. I will have built Cortlandt.”

“You’re getting more than I am, Howard” ” [Ibid. 581].

Basically, don’t care or think about anything unrelated to your values. This can be done, using the above examples, by imagining that they are in another dimension or one can impersonate the simple mind of a cat. Admittedly, when I read these passages, I tried to imagine all the negative concerns in my life as merely something external and unrelated to me, or in another dimension, and I began to feel elated, free, and jovial. I then had a desire to focus on developing myself and those values which would make me happy (pursuit of happiness).

I said acquiring egoism is the only essential requirement to Objectivism because Howard Roark, I assume, probably doesn’t know much about philosophy, politics, or anything else unrelated to his values. So, he probably wouldn’t know much about laissez-faire capitalism, or the evils of socialism, or morality, or any deep philosophy (but he would certainly know about aesthetics because of his profession), yet we would still brand him an Objectivist simply for his egoism.

Your thoughts? Am I right or wrong? Am I becoming brainwashed? Thanks!

References:

Rand, Ayn. The Fountainhead. New York: Signet. 1993.

[KendallJ]

Basically, don’t care or think about anything unrelated to your values. This can be done, using the above examples, by imagining that they are in another dimension or one can impersonate the simple mind of a cat. Admittedly, when I read these passages, I tried to imagine all the negative concerns in my life as merely something external and unrelated to me, or in another dimension, and I began to feel elated, free, and jovial. I then had a desire to focus on developing myself and those values which would make me happy (pursuit of happiness).

I said acquiring egoism is the only essential requirement to Objectivism because Howard Roark, I assume, probably doesn’t know much about philosophy, politics, or anything else unrelated to his values. So, he probably wouldn’t know much about laissez-faire capitalism, or the evils of socialism, or morality, or any deep philosophy (but he would certainly know about aesthetics because of his profession), yet we would still brand him an Objectivist simply for his egoism.

Hi Dingbat! welcome to the forum.

No, someone who simply pursues their values to the exclusion of all else could not be said to be an Objectivist. It necessarily leads to the question “Which values are the right ones?”, “Am I choosing good values?”, “Can I do anything to pursue my values, regardless of the impacts to other people?”

Objectivism is an intergrated philosophy based upon a particular view of the world, a particular view of the nature of man, a particular resultant set of ethics (values and virtues) and a particular method of dealing with other people. The choices Roark makes are examples of these in action, but I think that The Fountainhead doesn’t necessarily explain the principles behind his action. As a result, the practice of emulating any character of Rand’s will probably not give you a particularly Objectivist set of actions because you are attempting to infer the principles behind his actions. Wouldn’t you rather work from the actual principles instead?

An Objectivist is one who understands, accepts, and attempts to act in a method consistent all of these facets.

I’d recommend you take the feelings you feel, and use that motivation to read Atlas Shrugged which does contain a non-fictionalized, principles statement of Objectivism, and it’s a great read!

[Dingbat]

No, someone who simply pursues their values to the exclusion of all else could not be said to be an Objectivist. It necessarily leads to the question “Which values are the right ones?”, “Am I choosing good values?”, “Can I do anything to pursue my values, regardless of the impacts to other people?”

You’re right and I think I should have been saying rational egoism instead. I’m presupposing that the individual in question, like Howard Roark, is rational, and will be able to judge values and actions for himself using reason. So, questions of values is not an issue.

As a result, the practice of emulating any character of Rand’s will probably not give you a particularly Objectivist set of actions because you are attempting to infer the principles behind his actions. Wouldn’t you rather work from the actual principles instead?

I’m assuming that not even Roark understand these principles deeply himself. He probably wouldn’t know much, especially concerning the Objectivist position, about politics, philosophy, or history, yet we would still brand him an Objectivist. My argument is that it is his rational egoism that ultimately determines that he is an Objectivist.

Of course, it’s good to know about other topics, but I think that would just be additional knowledge. For example: you could learn everything there is to know about Objectivism by heart, but not be a rational egoist. Despite your knowledge, I wouldn’t say you are an Objectivist. Alternatively, you could be a rational egoist, but lets say every reference to laissez-faire capitalism was unavailable to you (they didn’t have Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or every page about capitalism was omitted in Rand’s books or something), you wouldn’t know about something called capitalism, but your manner as a rational egoist, which would naturally ascribe to Capitalism should you discover it, is enough to call oneself an Objectivist.

This is like the story in Anthem where individualist knowledge was forbidden in society, yet I’d say the characters, once they started to turn against collectivism, would be considered Objectivists despite their lack of knowledge in many topics.

An Objectivist is one who understands, accepts, and attempts to act in a method consistent all of these facets.

This, I argue, requires only a rational egoism.

[chuckbutler]

To add to Kendall’s response (with which I agree):

I think it’s very difficult to read any one book by Ayn Rand (even “Atlas Shrugged”) and gain a thorough understanding of Objectivism. That’s probably true of any broad philosophical system–reading one single book by Plato or Aristotle or Kant is not going to reveal the full picture. Following “The Fountainhead,” I agree that “Atlas Shrugged” should be next on your list. Then I’d take a look at “The Virtue of Selfishness” as well as “Philosophy: Who Needs It” and/or “For The New Intellectual.” If you seek a deeper understanding once you have those under your belt, you might move on to “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Peikoff and perhaps “Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics” by Smith. That’s a lot of reading, but I think those books are absolute essentials if you really want to understand Objectivism in full.

It might seem as though Objectivism boils down to rational egoism–and in a sense that’s true–but if you don’t understand the metaphysical and epistemological basis that leads to Rand’s theory of ethics, you’re missing the fundamental why of the system. So while it’s fine to think to yourself, “what would Howard Roark do in this situation,” your broader values and goals will almost certainly be different from his. How you identify and order your values (which you intend to pursue as a rational egoist) is as important as the manner in which you choose to pursue them.

I would be careful about the notion of “becoming an Objectivist.” There’s something about that phrase that makes it sound as if you could suddenly turn into an Objectivist, or that you would “convert” to Objectivism in the same way that some people “convert” to a different religion. If you’ve found something that appeals to you in Objectivism, I would encourage you to explore it carefully and methodically. If you’re like me, you’ll want to review all of the premises you hold, and consider which are consistent and which are inconsistent with what you are learning. Don’t take Ayn Rand’s word for it, or Leonard Peikoff’s, or mine, or anyone else’s. Think independently; draw your own conclusions. That’s also a big part of what Objectivism is about. It’s up to you to check your premises, validate concepts, and insure that your knowledge is properly integrated. As your understanding of the system improves, you can gradually begin to apply Objectivist philosophy in your daily life. Let me warn you–it’s not going to be easy. It takes a while to sort through all of the bad philosophical ideas you’ve absorbed (I’m still working on that myself), and the more you learn the more you realize that the vast majority of our current culture believes exactly the opposite. But change has to start somewhere, so I congratulate you on your discovery, and wish you well in the journey toward truth that lies ahead.

[KendallJ]

This, I argue, requires only a rational egoism.

Conceptually, this is correct. Epistemologically, it is some of the poorest advice I can think of.

If you don’t know what that means, then just use your rational eqoism to figure it out.

[softwareNerd]

… yet we would still brand him an Objectivist simply for his egoism.

Does it matter what we brand him? In what actionable way? In other words, if we say that Roark was an embodiment of rational egoism, but not and Objectivist, what difference does that make to you?

[EC1]

Conceptually, this is correct. Epistemologically, it is some of the poorest advice I can think of.

If you don’t know what that means, then just use your rational eqoism to figure it out.

This is good. What it implies ~~> For one to be an Objectivist he must be a rational egoist, but all rational egoists are not necessarily Objectivists. Although, they can become one with much more ease than the average non-egoist with a little study and thinking.

This also goes back to that question in another thread asking what makes one different that made it easier for him to accept Objectivist ideas. I would say that at our core most of us were rational egoists (in the sense that we were all independent thinkers ) before we discovered the philosophy.

[Dingbat]

I will read more Objectivism. The problem with me was that I felt that I could understand why Laissez-Fair Capitalism works and the other systems don’t, or I could understand things like existence exists or A is A, and such, but what really eluded me wasn’t the knowledge part but the living by it part. I found many of Rand’s characters cryptic with the many things they said or did. Now, I think I can understand their ‘mentality’ if I identify them as rational egoists. And, I think I’m understanding that unless I become a rational egoist, it won’t matter what I know about Objectivism, I’ll never be one.

…but if you don’t understand the metaphysical and epistemological basis that leads to Rand’s theory of ethics, you’re missing the fundamental why of the system.

True, but I don’t find this concerning. I think a rational egoist, like Howard Roark, would naturally behave consistently with Objectivist ethics, even if that individual didn’t have a deep understanding of Objectivist ethics.

It is good to know deeply about things and I don’t discourage it, but I’m arguing that it’s only through accepting rational egoism does one become an Objectivist.

My suspicion is that since upholding selfishness is too counter-intuitive, because of the dominance of altruism, Rand had to go in-depth philosophically to make the case for it?

There’s something about that phrase that makes it sound as if you could suddenly turn into an Objectivist, or that you would “convert” to Objectivism in the same way that some people “convert” to a different religion.

It does sound that way, however Objectivism, being reason and reality based, is safe from dogmaticism. Plus, I don’t think there are any similarities between becoming a rational egoist and converting to the collectivist mysticism of religion.

Conceptually, this is correct. Epistemologically, it is some of the poorest advice I can think of.

If you don’t know what that means, then just use your rational eqoism to figure it out.

I actually don’t understand what is being implied here sorry. (Maybe I should toss my ego.) But, what I was trying to say before was that to act on those facets you mentioned previously, and thus understand them, you’d have to already be a rational egoist.

…if we say that Roark was an embodiment of rational egoism, but not and Objectivist, what difference does that make to you?

For one to be an Objectivist he must be a rational egoist, but all rational egoists are not necessarily Objectivists.

I don’t think you could be a rational egoist without also being able to be labelled as an Objectivist. A rational egoist could exist that has never heard of Rand’s philosophy, but that person would naturally agree with Objectivism. In other words, there would be no contradiction between the philosophy and that individual. As a rational egoist, you would only be concerned with the pursuit of your values. It follows that any individual who acknowledges that reality functions according to set laws and understands that his ambitions are better achieved by following these laws must necessarily employ reason. This, I argue, is what I mean by rational egoism, this is how Howard Roark functions, and this is what fundamentally makes one an Objectivist.

[KendallJ]

I actually don’t understand what is being implied here sorry. (Maybe I should toss my ego.)

That’s ok I was being a bit impish and illustrating my point by making you live through it.

But, what I was trying to say before was that to act on those facets you mentioned previously, and thus understand them, you’d have to already be a rational egoist.

I don’t think you could be a rational egoist without also being able to be labelled as an Objectivist.

I agree with the first statement, but I disagree with the last. But I think I see your point.

A way to test this would be to look at the reasons why people were struck by Rand. Having seen many of those testimonials on this forum (there are several threads) I think that it is not necessarily the case the one is a rational egoist and only those type of people would get it. I in fact am an example of someone who came to rational egoism, but didnt’ start there in any explicit way when I read TF and AS.

Conversely I also know many Objectivists, who probably get “rational egoism” but whom I think have a very poor understanding of Objectivist principles. As such, one cannot simply rely on their concept of rational egoism to assure that they’ll come to the proper conclusions in any given situation. What is the egoistic course of action if you’re loved one is drowning? what is the egoistic course of action in a financial panic? The concept is too broad to be of use. THat is why Objectivism breaks down into a philosophic science, ethics, politics, etc.

For instance, technically the Objectivist virtues of Honesty, Integrity, Independence are all derivatives of the primary virtue “Rationality”. However we still need to understand those concepts because they help us “unpack” what the meaning of rational egoism is in certain situations. The same thing with rights in politics. Without the concept of rights, egoistic ethics can be misled into predation.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense.

[Dingbat]

Conversely I also know many Objectivists, who probably get “rational egoism” but whom I think have a very poor understanding of Objectivist principles. As such, one cannot simply rely on their concept of rational egoism to assure that they’ll come to the proper conclusions in any given situation.

You’re maybe right that one probably cannot simply rely on their concept of rational egoism. My falacy in this argument will probably be found here. I wasn’t very rationally egoistic prior to reading The Fountainhead, so this is a new thing to me.

My assumption is that there are many ways of being an egoist (and human nature is always some form of egoism by default), but only one way of being a rational egoist, and this form is Objectivism. But, I’m using ‘rational’ here to describe a mental process that works according to the laws of reality, yet I don’t know if the use of that word necessarily attributes to reality, so maybe I’m overstepping and I should be even clearer. But, if I’m right, or maybe my mistake is here, then I argue that being a rational egoist consistently necessarily implies that your conclusions to given situations will always be the proper ones. It follows that you will come to accept the Objectivist position on politics, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, integrity…etc should you discover them.

So, those ‘rational egoists’ you think you know probably aren’t really rational.

There is an argument against Libertarians here. Libertarians may borrow Rand’s thoughts and spout them in convenience, but if they are not rational egoists then there is no connection between Objectivism and Libertarians.

[softwareNerd]

So, those ‘rational egoists’ you think you know probably aren’t really rational.

What if they are rational but mistaken in some areas?

You seem to be saying this: if one is rational and put’s one’s interests first, one will automatically figure out all the other things that Objectivism says; if one does not, then one is not rational.

Is that what you’re saying?

[Dingbat]

What if they are rational but mistaken in some areas?

If the individual is rational but mistaken, then that would have to be an ‘honest mistake’ derived from insufficient information. But, given the correct information, if one is honest to his reasoning, using reality as his framework, there should be no mistakes.

You seem to be saying this: if one is rational and put’s one’s interests first, one will automatically figure out all the other things that Objectivism says; if one does not, then one is not rational.

Not automatically. Hypothetically, using reason, one could come to figure out all the other things in Objectivism, as Ayn Rand did. But, you’d have to be a very dedicated philosopher to attempt that.

At the least, being a rational egoist would make you automatically agree with Objectivist concepts should you discover them on your own or through others.

Maybe I’m taking this too far, but I wonder if it can be said that Objectivism is primarily set up to defend reason and egoism in this world of altruists, mystics, and subjectivists. Objectivist epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and politics all draw centrally from this idea of an egoism which is also rational.

I don’t think you can argue that it was set up to defend or promote anything like Laissez-Faire Capitalism or Aesthetics at the front because those depend on the concept of human nature as being capable of using reason and only being concerned with their own values. Perhaps you can argue that everything in Objectivism draws from its epistemology or metaphysics, such as ‘existence exists’ or ‘A is A,’ but one can know these things and still not be an Objectivist if you don’t act on it. Alternatively, if you behave in a manner consistent with ‘existence exists’ or ‘A is A’ but are not familiar with any deep philosophy, like Howard Roark or the main characters in Anthem near the end, I will still say that you fit the definition of an Objectivist.

[softwareNerd]

I don’t think you can argue that it was set up to defend or promote anything like Laissez-Faire Capitalism or Aesthetics …

True, but even thinking in terms of it being “set up to defend” something is misleading. Would you say that Copernicus or Galileo or Newton set up their theories to defend a certain viewpoint?

I’m still not able to understand what you’re getting at here. Suppose there is a modern, rational man who is very rational. He does not believe in Gods and other superstitions. Also, suppose he believes that his own life and values, his family, his friends, etc. should be the main focus of his actions. Also suppose he has never read Rand. in other words, we have someone who might qualify as being a rational egoist (or very close to being one).

Now, I don;t understand the point that you want to make about this hypothetical man. You say you want to call him an “Objectivist”? Is that it? You simply want to use the term “Objectivist” to mean “rational egoist”? Or, are you making a point beyond the use of the term? For instance, are you saying that being a rational egoist takes him (say) 99% of the way to happiness and fulfillment, and he really does not have much to gain from understanding (say) the Objectivist view on concept-formation? Are you talking about what terms one should use, or about what is important and what is not?

[Dingbat]

True, but even thinking in terms of it being “set up to defend” something is misleading. Would you say that Copernicus or Galileo or Newton set up their theories to defend a certain viewpoint?

You’re right, maybe ’defending’ is improper wording. I guess I mean that Rand was putting forth a case for rational egoism, and since that is counter-intuitive or against the social norm, she would have to defend it.

Now, I don;t understand the point that you want to make about this hypothetical man. …

I want to make sure that my commitment to Objectivism is done legitamitely. I come here to cross-check this idea that a rational egoism is all that’s needed. Personally, I’ve always come back to Objectivism time and time again, learning more about various Objectivist positions on certain topic, even about egoism, and I felt I was capable of understanding the philosophy, however the actions of the various characters in Rand’s fiction frequently seemed counter-intuitive to me. What’s more, they probably know less about Objectivism than I do. Finally, thanks to The Fountainhead, it finally clicked, and thanks to passages like the one I’ve cited, I’ve come to understand how to be a rational egoist, how to be concerned with only your own values, and how to ignore anything unrelated to your values.

I know that maybe to a lot on this forum, you have already made this realization and are confused when I argue for something obvious, but I just wanted to make sure I was on the right track. I felt like I was a weak Objectivist, or a fake basically (I used to be a Libertarian even, but lets not go there), but now I want to change that, and I greatly appreciate the input from this forum. I want to avoid misinterpreting Rand’s philosophy as much as possible.

[chuckbutler]

I want to make sure that my commitment to Objectivism is done legitamitely. <snip> I want to avoid misinterpreting Rand’s philosophy as much as possible.

In re-reading this entire thread, it seems to me that some of the confusion has to do with an implicit versus explicit understanding of Objectivism.

Rational egoism is certainly central to Objectivism. And I do think that one can function as a “rational egoist” without ever having heard of Ayn Rand or Objectivism (When I stumbled upon Atlas Shrugged in 1999 I was astonished to discover that there was someone else who viewed the world as I did. Up until then, I naively thought I was inventing my own philosophy!). But unless a “non-Objectivist rational egoist” can answer questions like “what is your standard of value?” or “why should one pursue values at all?” or “why should one pursue values rationally?” he may find it difficult to determine whether his egoism is rational or irrational, and his concept of “rational egoism” may in fact be a floating abstraction.

While Howard Roark was clearly a rational egoist, he could not have identified himself as an Objectivist, since Objectivism, as a fully-developed philosophical system, did not exist in the context of his fictional world. We may identify Roark as an example of an Objectivist–now that we know precisely what that entails–but Roark could not possibly have understood Objectivism in the explicit sense (since Rand herself hadn’t fully worked out the details at the time of writing The Fountainhead). So I would argue that Roark operated as a rational egoist and, from an implicit, sense-of-life standpoint, could be called an Objectivist. But for you to call yourself an Objectivist, given that Objectivism is a well-defined philosophical system and given that your questions indicate that you would like to understand Objectivism in an explicit sense, I think you would need to understand more of the detail of the system. That doesn’t mean you have to understand it to the degree Peikoff does; only that you have some structured, integrated knowledge of what the system holds. For example, I could call myself a “Dodgers fan”: I wear a Dodgers shirt, I root for them to win, maybe I go to a game now and then. That’s fine. But if I can’t name any of the players on the team–or if I can only name their most famous player–am I really a fan? That’s a very loose analogy, but I think you get my drift.

BTW, I don’t think there’s any need to go beyond being a “sense-of-life Objectivist” if you don’t want to; all you really need is a grasp of the basics for everyday life. But if you want to call yourself an Objectivist in the explicit sense, I think you’ll need to go beyond “rational egoism” and understand the basis for the philosophy and how it integrates into a full system. Then, if you’re like me, you’ll want to go back and gain a deeper understanding of other philosophical systems, using Objectivism as a frame of reference, to discover whether or not you’re able to defend Objectivism against other philosophical positions.