Objectivism: my fall from reason??

Questions about Objectivism
1

Hello,

Over the past 5 days I have lost my entire philosophical framework which was Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I have come to realize huge issues with the ethics, and now the rest is also starting to unravel. I have spent a great deal of time researching other philosophy, and I feel somewhat ashamed at how ignorant I was.

I feel human again, it’s hard to explain. I feel almost like I had abandoned myself. Trying to use reason to justify every desire is not only impossible but it slowly destroys your capacity to desire anything. I could never figure out what I wanted, or how to justify it, when I had a sudden realization precipitated by a single comment from a PhD philosopher friend of mine when discussing ‘life as the standard of value’. I had desires, but I wasn’t listening. All I had to do was listen.

I was warned by Objectivists that pursuing things for their own sake, for the enjoyment in itself, would come at a price. That is the hell to which you are cast. You may enjoy yourself, only if permitted .Only if it is incidental to the pursuit of ‘rational values’ that are ‘proper for man’s life’. Rational values… whatever is for your life. Apparently enjoying yourself is not enough.

I have spent hundreds of hours studying Objectivism. I feel I know it inside and out. And now, I am on the other side, so I can at least critique with a deep knowledge. Perhaps that is the only good thing about this. Objectivism gave me the vision of happiness being important, for which I will forever be grateful, and it also made me interested in deep questions, which is a gift as well. But in a sense, it has stolen years of my youth with its moralization. A deep sense of guilt whenever I could not identify a reason behind a desire, and a stiffling of any natural ambition, natural pleasures of life, in the name of reason and not living irrationally. Whim worship, I feared it like the plague.

I do think Rand had a point about some things, but her ethics is a linguistic bait and switch. She sets up a good case for some basic ground rules for how a human may better survive, but that is all. She gives you no reason for living, and all her ethical values, are in fact, only instrumental values for life-as-survival. She soon linguistically bait and switches that for a life-as-experienced which she calles ‘life qua man’ and then she ossiclates between the two as it is convenient.

That is just one of the problems.

I’m anxious to discover other answers to life’s questions. So here I am. I may have a lot of silly questions in the future. Bare with me.
 

2

I mean, some of what you are saying is an issue of taking things dogmatically rather than agreeing with something because you thought hard about it. And sometimes it takes people a while before they realize that they were being dogmatic. The things you described feeling guilty about are flawed and harmful ways of thinking, that only come about from forcing oneself to believe something without having actually understood. 

The criticism about ‘life qua man’ is valid, in the way that I don’t think Rand is explicitly clear what she means by this. I don’t think her point is wrong, but what exactly means doesn’t get nearly enough attention as it should. But it’s definitely in her fiction. In a way, life-as-experienced is only portrayed in her fiction, where the process of being alive and the instrumental things to accomplish it creates a wondrous and enjoyable experience. Seeking life requires no further reason than that. 

In any case, it’s hard to tell if you’re here to have a discussion so that you can look at things in a different way, or if you are here to get angry and argumentative about everything because you blame Rand for leading you astray. 

3

On 4/24/2024 at 3:37 PM, Ogg_Vorbis said:

. . . A deep sense of guilt whenever I could not identify a reason behind a desire, and a stiffling of any natural ambition, natural pleasures of life, in the name of reason and not living irrationally. Whim worship, I feared it like the plague.

. . .

I’m anxious to discover other answers to life’s questions. So here I am. I may have a lot of silly questions in the future. Bare with me.
 

“A deep sense of guilt whenever I could not identify a reason behind a desire, and a stifling of any natural ambition, natural pleasures of life, in the name of reason and not living irrationally. Whim worship, I feared it like the plague.” I never felt that way when I was an Objectivist. You remind me of the evangelists who tell tall tales of the sins they committed and misery they suffered  before they were “saved”—in your case, before you were no longer an Objectivist.

“I’m anxious to discover other answers to life’s questions. So here I am. I may have a lot of silly questions in the future. Bare with me.” No. Bear with me. You are here to preach, starting with disingenuous questions.

1 Like
4

On 4/24/2024 at 3:37 PM, Ogg_Vorbis said:

I have spent hundreds of hours studying Objectivism. I feel I know it inside and out. And now, I am on the other side, so I can at least critique with a deep knowledge.

“Hundreds of hours” is nothing.

I discovered Peikoff’s book OPAR in 1997. That was 27 years ago.

I think you are making beginners’ mistakes.

5

On 4/24/2024 at 9:37 PM, Ogg_Vorbis said:

— when discussing ‘life as the standard of value’. I had desires, but I wasn’t listening. All I had to do was listen.

I was warned by Objectivists that pursuing things for their own sake, for the enjoyment in itself, would come at a price. That is the hell to which you are cast. You may enjoy yourself, only if permitted .Only if it is incidental to the pursuit of ‘rational values’ that are ‘proper for man’s life’. Rational values… whatever is for your life. Apparently enjoying yourself is not enough.

I have spent hundreds of hours studying Objectivism. I feel I know it inside and out. And now, I am on the other side, so I can at least critique with a deep knowledge. Perhaps that is the only good thing about this. Objectivism gave me the vision of happiness being important, for which I will forever be grateful, and it also made me interested in deep questions, which is a gift as well. But in a sense, it has stolen years of my youth with its moralization. A deep sense of guilt whenever I could not identify a reason behind a desire, and a stiffling of any natural ambition, natural pleasures of life, in the name of reason and not living irrationally. Whim worship, I feared it like the plague.

I do think Rand had a point about some things, but her ethics is a linguistic bait and switch. She sets up a good case for some basic ground rules for how a human may better survive, but that is all. She gives you no reason for living, and all her ethical values, are in fact, only instrumental values for life-as-survival. She soon linguistically bait and switches that for a life-as-experienced which she calles ‘life qua man’ and then she ossiclates between the two as it is convenient.

 

“…life as the standard of value”. Yes, but whose life is *the standard* - the measure of judgment for the supreme value, one’s own life?

That is “Man’s”. Not one’s own, nor anybody else’s, nor ‘humanity’s’. It is the single animal or plant or microbe’s continuing life/existence/survival, which is its OWN “standard” of good - or evil, where it is endangered and perishes (-- in the view of a human observer). In contrast with those, Rand clarified the important distinction.

Man requires a higher, abstract, standard, fitting to man’s consciousness, so recognizing the individual’s ability to concretize from an abstraction - towards his own solid chosen, purposes - in short, he/she to further a proper, quality life lived through and by their objective qualities (one’s necessary virtues/values I don’t need to list). 

To possess life and existence, of course, is the metaphysical/biological primary and prerequisite: “life as survival”.

HOW to live it - qua man - is not “given”, however. We haven’t instincts, just to start with.

If survival/“enjoyment” was all that counts, then every type of irrational-subjective predator on others could claim to be “selfish” and an “egoist”. 

You are not the first to misinterpret this crucial point on rational egoism, me too. That it detracted from your (mind-body) life enjoyment rather than magnified it, I’m sorry to hear.  

 

6

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I mean, some of what you are saying is an issue of taking things dogmatically rather than agreeing with something because you thought hard about it. And sometimes it takes people a while before they realize that they were being dogmatic.

There is a flip side to this, namely, that some subjectivist-minded people think that strict adherence to reality is the same thing as adhering to dogma. So while they claim that they are rejecting the “dogma” of Objectivism, what they are actually rejecting is reality. They are rejecting the notion that A is A.

Reality doesn’t give any commandments; it is not a dogma; it simply is what it is. The requirements of man’s life are what they are, too. You can’t cheat reality, you can’t fool it, and you can’t get around it. Some people have problems with that. They want to be free to fantasize. They want to be free to reject facts they don’t like. They can fantasize all they want, but it won’t put food on the table. Even writing fiction requires dealing with reality in various ways.

The main difference between reality and dogma is that, if an idea based on reality is mistaken, people can look at reality and see how it really works, so that they can correct the idea.

That is not possible with dogma, because dogma isn’t rooted in reality at all, so there’s no way to tell if it’s right or wrong, and nothing to appeal to except authority. It’s just a question of which authority you believe, and there’s no basis for any particular choice.

That makes a reality-based philosophy fundamentally different from a dogma-based one, but it’s a difference that some people don’t want to deal with. They want to reject the idea of “absolutes” and have everything be negotiable. But without reality, they have nothing.

1 Like
7

6 hours ago, necrovore said:

There is a flip side to this, namely, that some subjectivist-minded people think that strict adherence to reality is the same thing as adhering to dogma. So while they claim that they are rejecting the “dogma” of Objectivism, what they are actually rejecting is reality. They are rejecting the notion that A is A.

I suspect that is more about rejecting dogmatic thinking, but rather than reevaluating Objectivist ideas that they once held dogmatically, the person just throws out all the old ideas at once without further consideration. 

8

Is the subjectivist-mindedness a causal factor in their misapprehension of non dogma as dogma? 
The critique does usually seem to come from an unsatisfying practice of personal ethics and moralization. Premise checkers don’t normally seem to have disagreements with politics or capitalism.

9

16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I suspect that is more about rejecting dogmatic thinking, but rather than reevaluating Objectivist ideas that they once held dogmatically, the person just throws out all the old ideas at once without further consideration. 

What if it is only *assumed* that they held Objectivist facts of reality as dogma (which is what happens in the vast majority of cases) instead of following each argument Miss Rand carefully in all the non-fiction, applying reason to integrate the knowledge that agrees with one’s sense of life that they always possessed?

10

2 hours ago, EC said:

What if it is only *assumed* that they held Objectivist facts of reality as dogma (which is what happens in the vast majority of cases) instead of following each argument Miss Rand carefully in all the non-fiction, applying reason to integrate the knowledge that agrees with one’s sense of life that they always possessed?

Who knows. But based on what this person wrote here, they were thinking dogmatically. It’s not an assumption, it’s using what they themselves said about their thinking. 

11

So now you are just doing whatever you feel like?

12

I appreciate you sharing your personal journey and reflections on Objectivism and philosophy. It’s clear this has been a deep process of re-evaluating your belief system and sense of self.

Don’t be too hard on yourself for previously adopting Objectivism wholeheartedly. Many find rationalism and arguments for cultivating reason appealing, especially at certain stages of life. The fact that you’ve critically re-examined those beliefs with an open mind speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty.

Your realization that human life and fulfillment involves more than just rationally justifying every desire is profound. We are emotional, social, experiential beings - not just pure reason machines. Allowing yourself to embrace your authentic wants and find joy in experiences for their own sake can be incredibly liberating.

Philosophy is meant to be a process of continual questioning and refining of perspectives. Very few schools of thought have all the answers. Be open to drawing insights from various traditions while maintaining your critical thinking skills.

Don’t feel anxious about having “silly” questions going forward. The beginnings of true wisdom is having the humility to acknowledge gaps in one’s knowledge. Ask away!

The path of philosophical growth is often winding. Embrace this transition with self-compassion. You’ve already gained invaluable experience in rigorous rational thought. Now you can balance that with authentically listening to your own inner voice and experiences. An exciting new journey awaits.

13

20 minutes ago, John_Galt_DOA said:

Don’t be too hard on yourself for previously adopting Objectivism wholeheartedly.

I don’t think there’s any harm in adopting Objectivism wholeheartedly – assuming a couple of things.

First you (meaning, the person adopting Objectivism) have to be sure you have adopted Objectivism itself and not some distortion of it.

Second – and this one is far more important – you have to make sure that whatever you have adopted is consistent with reality and with the requirements of human life. Although I am pretty sure Objectivism meets these requirements (if properly understood), I am open to the possibility that some other philosophy might do a better job. (To be honest, though, I don’t expect to see such a philosophy in my lifetime.)

As far as I know, the most popular non-Objectivist philosophies frequently dispute reality rather than being consistent with it, and many of them also clash with the requirements of human life in various ways, including by undermining the human ability to establish truth by means of reason, which is one of those requirements of human life. Some philosophies merely have mistakes in them; others are quite deliberately deceptive.

So, yeah, the path of philosophical growth is often winding.

14

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

the person adopting Objectivism) have to be sure you have adopted Objectivism itself and not some distortion of it.

It’s tempting to call an interpretation of Objectivism a distortion (not necessarily by you, just in general) even when the interpretation is an attempt fix issues with the system that appear to be broken. Ayn Rand was neither omniscient nor infallibie. David Kelley argues for more openness and flexibility within Objectivism. He believes that Objectivism needs to evolve and adapt to dealing with new contexts not uncovered by Rand. Then you have various extensions of Rand’s politico-economic theory into anarcho-capitalism, Nietzschean Objectivism which highlights the masculinity and vitality current in her thought, Russian/Eastern European Objectivism with its own distinct non-American perspective on her system, and synthesizing Objectivism with other schools of thought.

Of course, it is possible for someone to simply misunderstand what Rand was trying to say. I think this is very common. But thankfully it doesn’t occur to the extent where people rape women and blow up buildings á la Howard Roark. But if one’s primary exposure to Objectivism is through reading The Fountainhead, including the foreword which describes Howard Roark as the ideal human, then problems can arise. Young admirers of Roark’s character have been known to adopt his personality and behavioral characteristics only to wind up looking like pompous jerks. I know Rand didn’t want this.

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

Second – and this one is far more important – you have to make sure that whatever you have adopted is consistent with reality and with the requirements of human life. Although I am pretty sure Objectivism meets these requirements (if properly understood), I am open to the possibility that some other philosophy might do a better job. (To be honest, though, I don’t expect to see such a philosophy in my lifetime.)

Maintaining an open mind is wise. Your critique about many non-Objectivist philosophies disputing reality, clashing with human thriving, or undermining reason is a fair criticism of certain philosophical traditions and belief systems.

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

As far as I know, the most popular non-Objectivist philosophies frequently dispute reality rather than being consistent with it, and many of them also clash with the requirements of human life in various ways, including by undermining the human ability to establish truth by means of reason, which is one of those requirements of human life. Some philosophies merely have mistakes in them; others are quite deliberately deceptive.

Which popular non-Objectivist philosophies are those? Deconstruction and postmodernism?

15

20 minutes ago, John_Galt_DOA said:

It’s tempting to call an interpretation of Objectivism a distortion (not necessarily by you, just in general) even when the interpretation is an attempt fix issues with the system that appear to be broken. Ayn Rand was neither omniscient nor infallible. David Kelley argues for more openness and flexibility within Objectivism. He believes that Objectivism needs to evolve and adapt to dealing with new contexts not uncovered by Rand. Then you have various extensions of Rand’s politico-economic theory into anarcho-capitalism, Nietzschean Objectivism which highlights the masculinity and vitality current in her thought, Russian/Eastern European Objectivism with its own distinct non-American perspective on her system, and synthesizing Objectivism with other schools of thought.

Ayn Rand was concerned with people misrepresenting her ideas, accidentally or deliberately.

It is a legitimate concern. It is difficult to defend one’s own ideas when they get mixed up with those of others.

It makes sense for people who come up with ideas based on Ayn Rand’s philosophy to call them something else. David Kelley can have all the openness and flexibility he wants, but not “within Objectivism.” Within philosophy, sure.

The same thing would apply if you substituted another philosophy instead of Objectivism.

The same kind of thing applies even outside of philosophy; for example, consider the names of open-source software projects.

35 minutes ago, John_Galt_DOA said:

Maintaining an open mind is wise.

I seem to recall something about maintaining an active mind.

37 minutes ago, John_Galt_DOA said:

Which popular non-Objectivist philosophies are those?

The first one that comes to my mind is Christianity, which strictly speaking is not a philosophy, but deals with many of the same issues as philosophy.

16

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

Ayn Rand was concerned with people misrepresenting her ideas, accidentally or deliberately.

It is a legitimate concern. It is difficult to defend one’s own ideas when they get mixed up with those of others.

It makes sense for people who come up with ideas based on Ayn Rand’s philosophy to call them something else. David Kelley can have all the openness and flexibility he wants, but not “within Objectivism.” Within philosophy, sure.

The same thing would apply if you substituted another philosophy instead of Objectivism.

The same kind of thing applies even outside of philosophy; for example, consider the names of open-source software projects.

David Kelley “believes that Objectivism needs to evolve and adapt to dealing with new contexts not uncovered by Rand.” This will be attempted from within Objectivism (which is within philosophy). If there is any revising of axioms and corollaries, it will no longer be Objectivism. If it turns out that Objectivism’s theory of causality is wrong, you will no longer have Objectivism.

It’s a matter of finding the limits of how much a system like Objectivism can evolve before it is no longer Objectivism. Those limits are not absolute and rigid. We can point to certain things, as essential to Objectivism, which cannot be changed. But there are things that can be changed without undermining the foundations. Dogmatically treating the limits as absolute is overly restrictive. It borders on keeping Objectivism true to Ayn Rand’s vision for it, whatever that may be, rather than helping it develop into something greater.

Even robust philosophies can benefit from new insights over time as knowledge progresses. Rigid adherence could leave Objectivism ill-equipped to address new cultural/technological contexts. In that case, history will simply leave Objectivism behind.

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

I seem to recall something about maintaining an active mind.

Rand apparently believed that open- and closed-minded represented the mind as a passively uncritical recipient of new information (open) versus a passively blind rejector of new information (closed). While it is valuable to have an active mind, a closed-minded person can be actively defensive regarding new, original, or disliked information. I would say her policy on this is more along the lines of critical-mindedness, like a mental sieve that determines which information is valuable and which is misleading and lacks credibility. Rand constantly sifted ideas through mental filters, evaluating them based on how they aligned with her principles.

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

The first one that comes to my mind is Christianity, which strictly speaking is not a philosophy, but deals with many of the same issues as philosophy.

It sounds like you’re contrasting the establishing of truth by means of reason versus faith. In my experience, it’s very easy to hold both of them in the same mind, but applying faith and reason to their respective realms, worldly or supernatural. This separating of realms can break down, leading to mental problems such as religious mania, a condition characterized by obsessive religious thoughts. But most often it does not. The difficulty for some religious people is applying religious moral principles to their actual lives in the real world. It seems to be more a matter of will-power and desire than an unsolvable problem.

17

J_G, I am pretty sure David Kelley has not and would not suggest “revising of axioms and corollaries”, nor the “theory of causality”.

His lectures as I recall, implicitly and explicitly, always contained references to those. You said it, “that will no longer be Objectivism”, and he knows this better than anyone.

The question is, what new knowledge in the universe (and of man’s nature) could challenge let alone, overturn, the philosophy?

No, existence-reality is the eternal all-encompassing: come what may. And our minds retain efficacy, from long ago into any future.

At another “level”, sure I think lesser adjustments - newfound derivatives - of O’ism can and should be added by thinkers and scholars.

Where Kelly’s criticism had it right in my opinion, was the tendency he viewed to intrinsicism within “Objectivists” (not O’ism, per se).

The initial “Revealed knowledge” (as taken from even and especially, Rand–particularly from her powerful romantic fiction) needs to be reexamined - objectively - re-evaluated and gradually replaced by one’s thinking, experience, striving and efforts, the essence unchanged, until the philosophy becomes no longer Rand’s, but one’s own.

The ‘fault’ was not with Rand but with one’s own reception of her works.

Since the effects of revealed knowledge as one sees at large in the history of general humankind and personally from many individuals, HAS to bring about eventual disillusionment and disappointment when matters of living don’t turn out as ideally anticipated, founded upon that “knowledge” and value system.

And: The flip-side of intrinsicism necessarily turns to subjectivism/skepticism–as Rand brilliantly saw.

In a more tangible way, “life gets in the way”, as is said, and one’s early (and fine) “enthusiasm” turns to the cynical.

Both intrinsicism and skepticism to be strenuously avoided. All the while not letting go of “the passionate search for passionless truth”.

I remember that Kelly’s stress was on one becoming “the complete philosopher” (my words and takeout) - by way, he gives every indication to this day, OF Objectivism.  

18

8 hours ago, John_Galt_DOA said:

Rand apparently believed that open- and closed-minded represented the mind as a passively uncritical recipient of new information (open) versus a passively blind rejector of new information (closed). While it is valuable to have an active mind, a closed-minded person can be actively defensive regarding new, original, or disliked information. I would say her policy on this is more along the lines of critical-mindedness, like a mental sieve that determines which information is valuable and which is misleading and lacks credibility. Rand constantly sifted ideas through mental filters, evaluating them based on how they aligned with her principles.

 

Your first thoughts are right, I’m sure; I have a problem with the last sentence.

Validation from concretes to principles and reducing those concept/principles back to concretes, may ~seem~ like “[Rand] evaluating them based on how they aligned with her principles”.

Then one may conclude Rand was a rationalist. :wink:

But one is seeing one half of the process. 

AFTER those principles have been solidly grounded, tried and true, can one (/Rand) evaluate any matters according to appropriate principles.

19

8 hours ago, John_Galt_DOA said:

Dogmatically treating the limits as absolute is overly restrictive. It borders on keeping Objectivism true to Ayn Rand’s vision for it, whatever that may be, rather than helping it develop into something greater.

I see it mostly as a question of naming, not dogma – and perhaps a question of fairness to Ayn Rand, in the sense of identifying whose thoughts are whose.

As I have written in this forum before, Objectivism itself (as I understand it) requires that I use my own mind, and not treat Objectivism as dogma.

If I want to correct a flaw in Objectivism or if I want to make an elaboration of some principle, I am completely free to do so, but that change is not Ayn Rand’s, it is not part of Objectivism, it is my change, and I’m responsible for whatever correctness or incorrectness it has.

That seems reasonable to me.

20

14 hours ago, John_Galt_DOA said:

. . .

Which popular non-Objectivist philosophies are those? Deconstruction and postmodernism?

I like what you said in this post I’ve quoted and linked. I omitted here all but your last questions to Necrovore. I’d like to answer them as well. The largely popular non-Objectivist philosophies in America are surely still Religion and Skepticism and foggy versions of James, Russell, Ayer, and Popper. In ethics it is still the virtue of self-sacrifice plus a rising sanctified environmentalism. Same old reactionaries pushing religious agendas in law, just as in the time of Rand. The actual philosophies, the philosophies in Academia are quite other than those for a long time now, and though they are often compatible with Objectivism, the latter is a thing whose name or distinctive ideas are not to be spoken in professional company. I see some mutterings under the influence of deconstruction and postmodernism online on FB and even in one poster here. Not from professional philosophers and not from my generation at all.