Who Are The True Objectivists?

The Critics of Objectivism
21

Being an objectivist and opposed to anarchism is a contradiction.

By the definition of objectivism, as presented by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, all objectivists must support anarchism**.  (And libertarianism as well.)

Note that Galts Gulch was a libertarian, anarchist utopia. 

Unfortunately, Rand did not chose a wise heir and now we have Piekoff attemtping to form a church (or is it more of a politburo) with pruges and decress and all manner of attempts to change objectivism from a philosophy into a cult.

The idea that “nobody who supports anarchism can be an objectivist” in itself is anti-objectivist because objectivism demands support for individualism-- not communalism.

I don’t know why so many “objectivists” are big fans of organized religion, and want to have a pope (Piekoff) who decress who is objectivist and who isnt, and support excommunications (like that of Kelly for the “sin” of telling people about objectivism).  But no thinking person who’s read Atlas Shrugged should be able to support that kind of crap.

Objectivism requires people to THINK FOR THEMSELVES.  Not follow a religion.

**Please note that Anarchism is a capitalist social organization that involves no government.  IT is not “chaos” or “Disorder” or any of hte other things that people tend to wrongfully conntate that it means. Anarchism is simply the absense of government.  Objectivism, requireing no man to live for another, must be opposed to government.  A simple definition of government is an entity that requires all in its geographic domain to live for its rulers.

A Capitalist society, one based on individual rights: life, property, choice, etc, does not guarantee that each individual respects rights, as it is usually open to all until one violates rights. Atlantis / Galt’s Gulch is not open to all and the criterion of admittance being individual rights, one’s own life and everybody else’s, non-violation within that society is guaranteed. Objectivism promotes Capitalism as the economic system, not Atlantis; hence the reference proves nothing.

A Capitalist system allows for the possibility of irrational individuals to linger in the shadows and constitute a thread to everybody’s rights. Either each individual provides for his own defense against such elements, or a delegated body does it. Anarchism is the less efficient option and is also much more prone to abuse. Furthermore, either each individual provides for his own defense against foreign invasion or oppression, or a delegated body does it. Under Capitalism, a government’s only valid purpose and powers are external defense and internal defense / justice and only to protect the rights of each individual. Either government has a monopoly on legal force to counter the initiation of illegal force, or a non-Atlantis / non-guarnateed anarchy might find itself the next day under a thugocracy.

Objectivism is not opposed to government; it is opposed to the violation of man’s rights. Just as the rational man cannot live under thugocracy, neither can he live under the potential for it. Anarchy is a dictatorship waiting to happen. A simple definition of Objectivism-endorsed government is an entity fully responsible to its citizens and whose sole purpose and freedom of action is is the protection and preservatio of individual rights.

I am not so up on the schisms, but from what I’ve read, you haven’t. Ayn Rand’s name is not a free-for-all and she had the perfect right to protect it in the form of a legal heir, and she also seemed somewhat picky about what ideas she let people attach to her name. I personally don’t think she would have allowed tolerationism a moment’s consideration.

22

The problem arises when we discuss areas like homosexuality where Objectivism does not give clear guidance.

Actually, I think that Objectivism DOES give us “guidance” on this subject. If a person is attracted to the same sex, and finds a willing partner, then what is the problem?

23

I proudly proclaim that I am an Objectivist (without apology) at this time. I am not really a “student of Objectivism” whatever that means. I simply recognize the supremacy of reason and I do not treat philosophy as a word game; philosophy (the study of the nature of existence, of man and consciousness, and of man’s relationship to existence) to me is a method of helping me actuate the moral purpose of my life (happiness). As Ayn Rand once stated:

I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.

I quite frankly find it silly that most of you all don’t think that you are worthy of calling yourselves “Objectivists”. Must one have a degree in philosophy to be an Objectivist? I think not! Must one read all the works of Rand to be an Objectivist? I think not! One can read all the works of Rand and not be particularly moved (as hard as this is to believe) because one might not accept the supremacy of reason. But once one has accepted the supremacy of reason then Rand would be a profound influence on one’s thoughts and life (yes, I am serious).

When one is a “student of Objectivism” does one ever graduate? Objectivism is not an elusive “state” that one tries to reach. eople. Don’t feel as if you are unworthy of the name “Objectivist” simply because you might not be omniscient or infallible. I am not claiming to be an Objectivist scholar but I am an Objectivist nonetheless.

Here is an excerpt from Rand’s interview with the Play Boy Magazine:

PLAYBOY: If widely accepted, couldn’t Objectivism harden into a dogma?

RAND: No. I have found that Objectivism is its own protection against people who might attempt to use it as a dogma. Since Objectivism requires the use of one’s mind, those who attempt to take broad principles and apply them unthinkingly and indiscriminately to the concretes of their own existence find that it cannot be done. They are then compelled either to reject Objectivism or to apply it. When I say apply, I mean that they have to use their own mind, their own thinking, in order to know how to apply Objectivist principles to the specific problems of their own lives.

The key element is reason; let it be your guide.

24

DonGalt:

The idea that “nobody who supports anarchism can be an objectivist” in itself is anti-objectivist because objectivism demands support for individualism-- not communalism.

Why does Objectivism support individualism? The answer to this question would show the ineptitude of your argument. Anarchism advocates gang rule (i.e., collectivism) and it’s manifestation is the exact opposite of objectivity, subjectivism. Who determines what rights are? In the case of anarchism it is the gang that has the most power to initiate the use of force so as to secure compliance.

Being Objectivist doesn’t mean that one is free to proclaim any evil (anarchism) and glory in that fact because one has asserted their individualism in making a personal choice to choose evil. You might be an individualist but are you rational? This is the key element you evade in your statement-the fact that one can be irrational and still claim to be an individualist. In your anarchistic land your individual rights can be violated at whim because there are no objective laws or the like. The protection agencies would have different ideas about what rights are and how to secure them. For example, there is the Christian Coalition police service that thinks that your wife’s abortion is a violation of a fetus’s rights. Then again, there is “Wanna-Be-Objectivist” police service think that it is quite okay for your wife to have an abortion. Whose rights are being violated? Who should I ask? Does the law of supply and demand hold in this case? What if most people demand that you be shot for letting your wife have an abortion?

One’s own independent judgment is the means by which one must choose one’s actions, but it is not a moral criterion nor a moral validation; only reference to a demonstrable principle can validate one’s choices.

– Ayn Rand

What is your demonstrable principle? Whim worshipping! By the way, you are not an Objectivist (see Kelley or Peikoff) so I must echo an earlier plea: “please leave”.

25

I could not say exactly what amount of knowledge one should have before calling oneself an Objectivist. Certainly one need not have a degree in philosophy. I would want to know – is the person familiar with enough of the essentials of the philosophy, and with the alternatives, to make a choice in favor of Objectivism? Does the person live by those essentials, to the extent possible to him?

A person who calls himself an Objectivist “too soon,” as a mistake, out of eagerness perhaps, is not at all troublesome. If this person is honest, he will either change his mind later, and acknowledge his mistake, or he will continue to learn about and integrate the philosophy. The person who we will judge as bad is one who calls himself an Objectivist while acting on and/or advocating ideas that he knows are contrary to those that Ayn Rand believed. And, if a person is in academia, we would assume that he has the intelligence necessary to decide whether he agrees with Objectivism, certainly in all its essentials, and probably in a number of details and basic applications. Thus, if we see such a person promoting ideas that are clearly anti-Objectivist, and yet call himself an “Objectivist,” then yes, we will judge him as bad, as someone who is trying to ride on Rand’s coattails without being “constrained” by agreeing in total with her philosophy.

There is also such a thing as being overly reluctant to call oneself an Objectivist; perhaps this comes from fear of the very constraint of which I speak. So long as one is merely a “student,” then he thinks he is free to make more errors. Only the individual can judge whether he knows enough to take the dive and commit – and it is a huge commitment. To say that one commits to being rationally self-interested to the best of one’s ability is tough stuff. However, there is also the danger of becoming an perpetual “agnostic.” My analogy (which may not be very good, so forgive me if it isn’t) is the couple that lives together for years and years and never commits to get married. There is something about the sheer act of commitment that allows one’s knowledge and integration to proceed further. And I’m not talking public declarations or trying to put everyone on the spot – this is a commitment to oneself, but still a commitment that one makes, explicitly, to oneself.

Am I making sense here?

26

Am I making sense here?

I think you’re making perfect sense. An Objectivist isn’t someone who’s almost got a book out on the philosophy, it’s someone’s who’s integrated the philosophy into their lives. The person who is working on a book on Objectivism would obviously be held to a higher standard than the average Joe who’s read VoS and C:UI plus Atlas Shrugged. Honest errors are still possible with the former, but they would indicate a cognitive laziness that doesn’t speak well for them.

27

While their may be some cases in which people call themselves “students of Objectivism” in order to have a “free pass” as it were to make any sort of contradictory errors in their own philosophy, for the most part I think people refer to themselves as that because they feel that they do not have enough knowledge in order to make the claim that they are an “Objectivist.”

When I originally wrote this post, I felt that I did not have enough knowledge of the philosophy to properly refer to myself as an Objectivist. However, at this point in my development, my knowledge has definitely increased. Most importantly, I have come to realize that the core of my own philosophical beliefs is reason and egoism. I have advanced past the point of referring to myself as merely a student of Objectivism.

28

Since I’ve seen some steam occasionally show up in different threads on this site, I decided that perhaps it would be good if the discussion of “anarchism or not in Objectivism” got its own thread. Therefore I suggest that we continue discussing this in the “anarchism vs minarchism” thread in the “Politics and Political Philosophy” section.

29

To say that one commits to being rationally self-interested to the best of one’s ability is tough stuff.

A commitment to rational self-interest is not the same as the promotion from “student of Objectivism” to “Objectivist.” I would say that I was committed to rational self-interest long before I even knew about Objectivism; in fact, the reason I became interested in Objectivism is that I found it would be a useful tool for me in fulfilling my commitment. So I’m a “Capitalism Forever-ist” first and an anything-else-ist only second; myself is the end and philosophy is a means; my commitment to my life is immutable, but my acceptance of a philosophy is contingent on the philosophy being an effective guide to my life.

This is why I prefer to be very careful about completely identifying with any philosophy. To say that I am an _____ist has a profound psychological impact; it affects one’s sense of identity, not only in that one accepts the principles of _____ism, but one also begins to feel a sense of adherence to the general tastes and preferences of _____ists, which may have nothing to do with the philosophy’s principles. Since this is a subconscious effect, defining “_____ist” as a person who accepts a set of principles does not eliminate it.

So I would say that you should first commit to individual ideas, such as rationality, selfishness, capitalism, romanticism, small-o objectivism, and so on–not because Objectivists tell you so, but because–and IF–you are convinced that these ideas are YOURS; that you can wholeheartedly advocate them, stand for them, and live by them. Studying Objectivism will help you identify and validate these ideas and will motivate you to act on them. Then, after you have lived by these ideas for a while and see their effect on your life, and you have studied Objectivism enough to fully grasp what it means, you can decide whether or not you are an Objectivist.

30

Who cares?

I mean, really, do you think that Fransisco or John Galt would sit around wondering about who is a “real” Objectivist? Either someone is good, or they’re not, and you determine that by their actions and their character.

There are SO many better ways to spend your brainpower. Like staring at the wall, for example.

31

For the record: I consider myself an Objectivist. Though I am by no means an expert, I have read all of Ayn Rand’s books and agree with everything. A key part is: I am now consistently applying Objectivism to my personal life.

32

My personal take on the word is - an Objectivist is one who applies the principles of the philosophy to his everyday life, though not necessarily with any conceptual knowledge of the principles.

The reason people prefer to call themselves “students of Objectivism” for a time while studying the philosophy and internalizing it is that they originally were applying the principles of some contradictory philosophy to their everyday lives. When one is confident enough in his studies and integration, he will call himself an Objectivist.

Our society in general promotes contradictory philosophies; most people grew up with them and thus must purge themselves and internalize the principles of Objectivism. Such a process takes time. Should society in general be Objectivist, such a thing will generally be unheard of as everybody will be applying the principles of the philosophy, and people will be calling themselves Objectivists (or “normal”) from birth.

33

The person who we will judge as bad is one who calls himself an Objectivist while acting on and/or advocating ideas that he knows are contrary to those that Ayn Rand believed.

What if he acts on and/or advocates ideas that are contradictory to the ideas of Objectivism–but he doesn’t know it?

Either A is A, and Objectivism is what it is, or not.

Objectivist doesn’t mean “basically rational”.

Objectivism is a proper noun. It is the name Ayn Rand gave to her body of ideas. It is a matter of intellectual honesty to use the name only when appropriate.

34

My personal take on the word is - an Objectivist is one who applies the principles of the philosophy to his everyday life, though not necessarily with any conceptual knowledge of the principles.

“A clock is something that currently indicates the correct time, though not necessarily because its hands rotate at the right speed.”

Sorry, a stopped clock does not tell time, not even twice a day.

35

“A clock is something that currently indicates the correct time, though not necessarily because its hands rotate at the right speed.”

Sorry, a stopped clock does not tell time, not even twice a day.

A clock thats 5 minutes slow isnt actually a clock?

36

How can you apply principles you don’t have?

37

A clock thats 5 minutes slow isnt actually a clock?

If you know that the clock is always 5 minutes slow, and the clock consistently remains 5 minutes slow, then you can use the clock to tell the time. But if the clock has stopped, you can never use it to tell the time; even though it happens to display the correct time twice a day, you don’t know when it does so.

38

How can you apply principles you don’t have?

I dislike fictional examples, but take Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged to understand how this can be done. I think Rand would have called it a ‘sense of life’ versus ‘conscious philosophy’ thing or something, I dunno.

39

I think that if we utilize the basic principles of Objectivism, without abusing them, that means that we basically believe that we agree with most of Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

Am I stating that I agree with every single minute detail of Objectivism? No. I don’t think that it is possible.

I have values. While someone may share and respect some of the same values I do, doesn’t mean that we value those values in the same priority.

I like money. Why? Because I do. I realize that it plays a big part in making me happy in life. Does that mean I value money more than anything? No. It is just one of the many values that I value. I value some things more than money- and some things less. It is with these values that I establish my morals and immorals (not sure if this is a word). We all share common morals such as rational laws that protect human rights. We also share common immorals. Some of these include rape, murder, theft, or whatever we disagree with. Why? Because these immorailities take something that we value away from us or from others as well (whose rights we should respect.) All of these things are established by me, my utilization of the principles of Objectivism, and my utilization of volition- no one else. To imply otherwise suggests that volition is non-existent, and furthemore, suggests that I have no brain.

I have noticed a great majority of posts in this forum- mine included, that ask for answers. That’s fine. However, most of us check Ayn Rand’s philosophy before coming to a conclusion. That’s fine too. By asking qusetions about something we have no knowledge of is the easiest way we gain that knowledge which we seek. But I do have one question. Some possibilities exist now that did not exist when Ayn Rand was alive. Who do we turn to now to answer our questions, figure out what makes us tick, and decide how we should live? To think that someone else with no Objectivist principles and aside from myself has to dictate my present day life, within the boundaries of nature that we must obey(things that are impossible to change)- and how I live that life is disasteful to say the least. Especially when I apply Objectivist princliples to my life.

Or can we still consult her? I think so. By properly utilizing her principles, and possessing the appropriate knowledge for the task that I want to accomplish, I think I solve whatever problem I need to solve. So, if I’m not an objectivist because I don’t use and agree with every single minute detail of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, then what am I? If I’m not an Objectivist, I’m not going to get bent out of shape by that fact. It would do no good, because doing so would not change the fact that am or am not indeed an Obejectivist. Well, if I can’t be an Objectivist, then I guess I’m just myself. To disagree with that statement,implies that I am not myself, have no identity, and do not exixt- which would make me a slave.

“In a nut shell,” I won’t take what’s offered, I’ll take what I choose.

Also, as a sidenote, I’ve heard people ask that if Ayn Rand expresses the virtue of selfishness then why did this brilliant woman give her philosophy to the world for utilization? My answer is this: She didn’t just give it. Philosophy is a way of live, so it is definately a requirement for everyone. And, it’s not without cost. We had to choose to give up whatever our past philosophy was in order to agree to, and apply, her philosophy to our life.

40

A clock thats 5 minutes slow isnt actually a clock?

Thanks for this concretization of intellectual dishonesty. I didn’t say that a slow clock isn’t a clock, and there is no way that you really believe I did.

Am I stating that I agree with every single minute detail of Objectivism? No. I don’t think that it is possible.

At the end of the day, there is only one premise that leads to the conclusion that two men can’t share the same exact set of beliefs. It goes like this. Reality is the subject of consciousness. There’s no way (trust me, I can step outside of reality to tell you authoritatively) that two consciousnesses can dream up the same shit. So therefore, if two men hold the same exact set of ideas, it’s because one is a mindless follower of the other.

Check your premises.

It is possible to agree with every premise of Objectivism. Since it’s not the Encyclopedia Brittannica(sp?) it doesn’t contain “minute details”. It is a philosophy, a proper philosophy, and so it contains universal truths.

While someone may share and respect some of the same values I do, doesn’t mean that we value those values in the same priority.

Objectivism does not contain a laundry list of values such as love Chinese food, hate pizza, etc. Nor even that one ought to be an accountant as opposed to an insurance broker.