Do I qualify to be an Objectivist
Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
I joined this site because I shared a thought process with Ayn Rand. long before I read Atlas Shrugged I was quite aware of the lack of logic that was raining down in our society. Logically I wondered how do people come to such opposing views of the world around them? The conclusion is there are people that use their emotions as their guide more than logic.. Do all people have the ability to look at every subject without emotion? No. What is the purpose of our emotional side? I suppose it aids in the survival of our species because without it we would drifting through life alone focused only on our own survival. Our spouses would only serve to satisfy a momentary purpose. Our children would be a drain on our resources. Our parents would eventually become useless to us so we could leave them if they were injured or ill.
I believe in God and if I debate you on this matter I will point to many emotional as well as logical reasons. Does this mean I am not an Objecitivist? I was an Objectivist long before I knew anything about Atlas Shrugged I was looking at the world and evaluating it based on logical conclusions for a long time. Was I supposed to take the Oath before I slapped down my $4.00 a month? I wouldn’t because I have a child that may depends on me for the rest of his/her life or mine. Everyone does not reach the same conclusion about every topic discussed on this site are they supposed to? Do they have to reach all of the same conclusions as Ayn Rand?
God. I paid my $4.00. to engage in Objective debate not subjective debate. Two people can reach very different conclusions on the same
I believe in God and if I debate you on this matter I will point to many emotional as well as logical reasons. Does this mean I am not an Objecitivist? I was an Objectivist long before I knew anything about Atlas Shrugged I was looking at the world and evaluating it based on logical conclusions for a long time. Was I supposed to take the Oath before I slapped down my $4.00 a month? I wouldn’t because I have a child that may depends on me for the rest of his/her life or mine. Everyone does not reach the same conclusion about every topic discussed on this site are they supposed to? Do they have to reach all of the same conclusions as Ayn Rand?
God. I paid my $4.00. to engage in Objective debate not subjective debate. Two people can reach very different conclusions on the same
An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand.
What about a man who does act on his emotions, the ones he does understand, regardless of the irrationality?
She is wrong to say a rational man doesn't act on his emotions, unless of course she was speaking of a man who doesn't exist.
In the words of... me...
"Bulllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll... (shit)."
That is just not true. Ayn Rand unfortunately did not know a lot about psychology. Emotions may or may not have anything whatever at all to do with your value premises. Because of this, it is very easy to have a clash between your emotions and your reason.
While one could have emotional responses concerning the value premises one has accepted and/or chosen, many emotional responses are not even fully about the event that triggered them but are magnified by and contain emotional content from earlier life events. It seems to me that this is clearly demonstrated in phobias. While a rational person values their life and not falling from a height, the fear of falling is present in people to various degrees (in the case of a phobia to an extreme and debilitating degree) and in some people seemingly not at all. This emotional response does not seem to correlate very well or at all to the value premise of not dying in a fall.
I think there are probably even far better examples. In meditation for example, people often find that all sorts of emotional responses begin to come up even though there is no triggering event - merely because the mind is relaxed.
Here is a quote from NB in the Benefits and Hazards article. I think that he agrees that emotions proceed from value judgments but I need to go back to his books to see what he says about it. I'm not convinced that he means exactly the same thing by that statement that AR did.
"Now let's turn to another very important issue in the Randian philosophy: the relationship between reason and emotion. Emotions, Rand said again and again, are not tools of cognition. True enough, they are not. Emotions, she said, proceed from value judgments, conscious or subconscious, which they do in the sense that I wrote about in The Psychology of Self-Esteem and The Disowned Self. Emotions always reflect assessments of one kind or another, as others besides Rand and myself have pointed out."
"A clash between mind and emotions is a clash between two assessments, one of which is conscious, the other might not be. It is not invariably the case that the conscious assessment is superior to the subconscious one; that needs to be checked out. The point is not that we follow the voice of emotion or feeling blindly, it means only that we don't dismiss our feelings and emotions so quickly; we try to understand what they may be telling us; we don't simply repress, rather we try to resolve the conflict between reason and feeling. We strive for harmony, for integration. We don't simply slash away the pieces of ourselves that don't fit our notion of the good or the right or the rational."
My pride isn't hurt. The actual psychologist in the Collective has said repeatedly that AR did not understand psychology or know much about it. And he has stated that that is a potential flaw in the way her thinking is presented.
You had emotions way before you were even capable of having a "value premise" or a premise of any sort.
Akston says, of John, Francisco & Ragnar "I am proud of their every action, of their every goal – and of every value they’ve chosen.”
Mulligan & Akston ask the 3 about their plans for the next year. When John says he doesn’t know if he’ll be returning to NYC, they object, plead, ask his reasons, try to convince him not to return because it’s dangerous.
When Ragnar comes to John’s house, after Dagny’s first night in the Gulch, John is clearly concerned about what has [or hasn’t] happened to him: “ Lost any men? Lost any of your time? Lost any battles?”
then, a few moments later, when Ragnar is telling John about his trip to the Gulch, he says to Dagny: “I’m used to objections….None of them approve of my particular method of fighting our battle. John doesn't, Dr. Akston doesn't."
But I could not find a place in which Akston, John or Frisco THEMSELVES say they do not agree with Ragnar's methods.
I've been consulting my dust-jacketed copy of AS so much that the dust jacket has finally torn -repairs ahead, I earned those tears and I'm keeping it!
I, for one, count myself a Constitutional Libertarian. I share many of the same beliefs as the Objectivists, but I also believe in God.
There are also some Objectivists on the extreme who are anarchists - I don't subscribe to that either. An organizing mechanism that provides for the common defense is essential, and I believe that the US Constitution is the best method yet devised to do so (not that it's not being bastardized daily by this current administration).
I suspect that they were merely agitator with a lot of time on their hands as they really only seemed to provoke. I fell into responding, but quickly (maybe not quickly enough) learned to ignore them. I see one of them here, with whom I've ceased engaging.
I enjoy having my thought process and tenets challenged - it helps me to more clearly articulate them to myself, my wife, my kids, and others whom I care for.
If what you mean by objectivist is someone who agrees with most of the philosophy, then sure.
If you mean someone that agrees and adheres to that philosophy's fundamentals consistently, then no. Christians believe and require faith (believing without observation) which contradicts a major fundamental in objectivist philosophy -- reason (belief based on observation among other things) as man's only absolute.
Or if none of those concepts fit what you're trying to say, feel free to define what you mean when you use the term objectivist.
For a good series of books on Objectivism's complete answer to the question of the super natural I recommend:
1. Introduction to objectivist epistemology (as a foundation)
2. Atheism: a case against god (as an application of #1 to the question of god's existence)
3. First few chapters of OPAR (as a rough outlined sketch of essentials)
"serve for the glory of God" - depends on how you define God. I don't believe that the human mind can conceptualize what God really is, thus we have tried to make him in our image, not as he truly is. This has been a failing of humankind in trying to understand that which is not understandable by humans.
I hope that you can appreciate my thoughts in this and other recent postings. This will be the last that I espouse on this topic.
Do I agree with Ayn Rand in everything she said? No, of course I do not because I am an independent free thinker. I do not blindly march to anyone’s drumbeat including hers. I am also a deeply religious person. I can see where the “religion bashing” can stress you out, but if you think about all the things done in the name of religion throughout history it is quite reasonable that unreligious people would have a bad taste in their mouths. I try to keep that in mind when I read such things. You have to be strong. People here are generally tolerant of others, but there are a few on here that will insult you and your religion. You have to be thick skinned. There are several of us here that are both Objectivists and Spiritualists, and do not feel the two are incompatible.
A key to this is being open minded. I have always been a religious person, but when I read Atlas Shrugged it spoke to me in a major way. I have said before it was like meeting Galt himself, and it was. I was your run-of-the-mill junior executive frustrated with the issues of society, taxes, my company’s almost mandatory charity deductions, and a wife that was “bravely exploring her gay lifestyle.” I allowed AS to speak to me and ended up shrugging off that life to become a common factory worker in a different state. At no point during this process did I question my devotion to god. In fact, I feel his blessing upon my efforts and his lack of blessing when I do not make my own effort. I honestly believe that you must help yourself.
A lot of people believe that Christianity and Objectivism are incompatible due to the “I am my brother’s keeper” attitude. I say it depends on how you interpret that in your own life. For example, I had a female coworker that had been threatened and wanted to get a gun for self-protection. I took her to Gander Mountain where she could hold various guns. Once she found what she liked I took her where she could get it cheaper. I then took her to my range and taught her how to use it. I found a CC class for her and she got her permit. She now carries all the time. I did not charge her anything. The value I got from it was my own personal satisfaction, and the knowledge that she will be better able to defend herself and her son. My personal philosophy is that being your brother’s keeper is about being willing to teach others, and be willing to learn from others. It does not include giving anything without getting in return.
I honestly do not think the John Galt Oath has anything to do with your own children. Do not forget that there were at least two children in the Gulch. If you love your children and they love you then you are getting value for value in that relationship.
Keep your faith in god foremost in your soul, and the logic of Objectivism as a guiding principal in your life and you won’t go wrong.
I would argue that when the "Gulch gang" jumped on aircraft and risked their lives to rescue John Galt, they were doing so because they valued him as a friend and for his contribution. I don't think there is anything incompatible in that idea and objectivism but I think it is given scant attention in AR's works. Your example seems to be of a similar kind. If I were walking down the street, and a man was raping a woman that I did not know, and I could stop it - I would. I think even at risk to myself. Is that altruism? I don't think so. I would rather help her at risk to myself than to live in a society where a rapist got away with his crime right in front of me.
AR I think touches this in her Philosophy: Who Needs It? speech which was to the 1974 graduating class at West Point. She honors them and says that they are not sacrificing. They are potentially risking their lives for the values they hold dear.
Ironiically, on the religious question, CS Lewis argued vehemently that Christianity, at its heart was not about altruism. That the ultimate motive was to gain the ultimate prize for oneself. And it was that prize that made all others pale in comparison. Of course, one has to believe in that prize first but he actually went so far as to argue that Kant created the idea of altruism and self-sacrifice (that the ONLY moral action is one in which you do not personally benefit) and that it was actually contrary to Christian teaching.
I think it depends on how someone adopts Objectivism in their lives. I think some see it as the end all philosophy, basically the truth of the entire universe. Others take pieces and parts of it and compose their own hybrid philosophy, combining it with their own religious beliefs.
I find that the world is so full of altruism and the belief in the virtue of need that these two sects of Objectivists waste time and energy when they argue with each other. Debate is fine, and even good, but Objectivists and Religious Objectivists have far more pressing enemies than each other imo.
For me, that doesn't sound interesting, it sounds repetitive and mirror imaging.
Of course I didn't really mean any of that when I first made my statement. I only meant that after 23 years I haven't met anyone who thinks like me, so if I discovered them I would be pretty dam interested in how they wound up like me.
I mean really, if you met a clone of yourself you wouldn't be interested in it?
I've read what you have written several times, and the only things I know about how [& what] you think is you believe in God, and you say you are an objectivist. You also point out that decisions can be based on emotion or reason.
Okaaaaay.
On what do you base your assertion [I think} that no one on the site thinks like you do?
and [this should be first, of course - defining the terms} do you mean "comes to the same conclusion" or "follows the same path to a conclusion which may or may not be the same"?
Most specifically, to what do you refer in your assertion that you don't think like I do? We have not interacted, as far as I remember.
Sorry if I'm missing the obvious, but I really do not understand your plaint, and I would like to.
I stand for reason based on reality and will for the rest of my life be grateful to Ayn Rand for what she has created. I will fight against irrationality till the day I die--or until I shrug.