Is Objectivism all or nothing?
Posted by richrobinson 7 years, 4 months ago to The Gulch: General
I am looking forward to a new administration and I have hopes that progress will be made over the next 4 years. While Trump is not perfect I am willing to take any victories I can. It does seem however that some would prefer to see our system collapse and that Trump will most likely just delay the inevitable. Does that mean Objectivists want all or nothing? Is it okay to accept some progress over none at all?
Every Objectivist to date has lived in the world as it was. Some have tried to improve it and spread the word. Some have just lived as best they can. I prefer to live in a time when the flame still has a chance to burn... and perhaps even brighter.
“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists.. it is real.. it is possible.. it's yours.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Regards,
O.A.
Understanding of THAT context, leads to the answers of your own question(s).
It is true that the first three are the most important because they give birth to the remaining two. But those two are an immediate reflection of the nature of the whole philosophical concept. If you want to know the nature of the society you're dealing with, check out the politics and art and you'll know in 5 minutes.
Do you not think that such things as "the nature of the society you are dealing with" is secondary to one's happiness? Do such concepts not represent far greater abstractions, embodying that which an individual can do little about, and depending on the importance of one's other values, seemingly becoming the object of one's existence? To the extent they do does it not become counter-productive, and if acted upon, an "out-of-context" focus that is potentially destructive of philosophy's primary purpose?
Yes it does take 5 minutes once you understand what Rand (and others) have taught, but that understanding is, more importantly, but part of the far greater understanding upon which one's happiness rests.
Those who would "save the world," whether rationally "natural" as Rand's imaginary Galt might conceive, or irrationally "supernatural" as the mystic's Jesus might construe and believe, it must be left to those among us desirous of such things. The rest of us must live our lives within the context of the world as it is. Our happiness, rationally derived, as our unerring goal.
Each of us, after spending whatever time is necessary to understand Rand, and then spending the 5 minutes "checking out the politics and the art" currently on display, should simply say "brother you asked for it," and emotionally move on. Any additional minutes added to the previous 5, should only be expended if we believe we might actually do something about what the initial 5 minutes brought to light.
Out happiness remorselessly depends on it.
Me too. I am doing well thank's. I hope all is well with you and yours.
Happy Holidays,
O.A.
My admittedly snide answer is it depends on what your goal is. If we like things going to the devil, being sanctimonious, and having a flood-myth hope that the problems will lead to catastrophe that wipes out the decadent, then we should make no compromises. If we actually want people's rights respected, incremental progress is the only way.
Not only that, things are amazingly good right now. Many people on earth understand the concept of their rights, that they're intrinsic, that they flow from them to the state not the other way around, and they expect their rights to be somewhat respected. People solve their problems with courts rather than violence, and the very concept of having a duel of some sort is now seen as low-class behavior. People who indulge in the flood-myth fantasy ignore how good we have it. We should build on what we have. We should be able to say our society respects personality liberty greatly without that being seen as condoning our imperfections. It's like we should be able to say spousal abuse or any other problem is way down compared to human history without that being seen as condoning the problem in its current form.
I do not at all anticipate that a glorious John Galt will arise from the ashes of a socioeconomic collapse.
More likely it would be someone like the current TV villain in The Walking Dead who uses homicidal terror to mooch off others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negan
Maybe more likely, no matter if progressive policies DID bring the USA down, an individual or a group of Bolshevik Bernies would arise to successfully pied pipe for a doubling down on control freak fascist socialism if not communism.
However it works out, the only phoenix to arise from such ashes won't be about the ringing of freedom.
I am definitely one of the deplorables and I hope he can thread his way through the swamp to free us of the shackles of statism.
Once totally collapsed, it will also take a long time to recover.
Both of those things would exceed my remaining lifetime and make living not very good during the time I have left.
Unfortunately that has already happened. Ayn Rand is shorthand among people who have not read any of her books for a set of ideas that's mostly opposite of what's actually in the books. It's like that Dirty Dancing reference from the other thread: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
I took me several readings of her non fiction when it became clear to me exactly what "check your premises" meant. Wrong premise, wrong route, wrong conclusion.
Rand viewed Objectivism as all or nothing. She clearly rejected libertarianism, and often was in significant disagreement with those who considered themselves among her closest adherents.
As for accepting small victories, does this make you a Dagny? I am quite willing to be called a Dagny.
lieved (to an extent). As I said before, Russian
roulette over certain death. But if he makes statist
moves, perhaps we can stop him in those cases.
(If you're in a gerrymandered district represented
by a Democrat, and Trump comes up with a
statist measure, maybe you can get the Demo-
crat to vote against it, if only for spite).
Additionally, a rational person's perception of what a candidate may or may not do to help/hurt their own self interest can vary from Objectivist to Objectivist. For instance, if my primary goal is to make more money, then Trump might seem like the best available candidate. If my primary goal is to have freedom to do as I please then perhaps Johnson might have been a better choice. It is all perception.
Seeing as though thats not going to happen, I will accept as objectivist a society as I can get.
I think almost any philosophy is "all or nothing". You either are in, out, or have a new philosophy. But, I'm no expert on that.
about "liberals" or "conservatives" she always (as
I recall) put those terms in quotation marks.
I cannot speak for all Objectivists, but there is a critical difference between Objectivism and alt-right conservatism. We have to be careful not to fall into the trap of pragmatism with this president, who does not appear to know principles as well as he knows how to stir up a crowd.
The question of whether alt-right conservatism or liberalism is worse might have a legitimate basis or might be a moot point, depending on the specific question. As for me and, I am sure, some other Objectivists, there is little fundamental difference between the two parties. Each exploits and reduces individual rights in favor of something else. The Democrats reject the right to property and, in so doing, destroy the virtue of productiveness. The Republicans under Trump reject certain liberties, liberties such as abortion rights or the rights of foreign nationals; should the taxpayers of Mexico be held accountable for an expensive 3000-ish mile wall? With this, Trump threatens the virtue of integrity.
were imperfect; she said that (memory quote) Ford
"is not ideal, but he deserves great credit for his
courageous attempt to hold down government
spending, and cut government controls...." I also
heard her on tape advocating Daniel Patrick
Moynihan over Buckley, in spite of the reserva-
tion she had about national health care.
delay the collapse as much as possible. -- j
.
However none of that means you can't trade with people of mixed premises (I don't care what the cabbie's political philosophy is), or that if there is a clear advantage to one bad path over a worse path, you shouldn't go with the former and try to make it even better.
Trump and some cabinet members are being portrayed in the media as "Objectivists"; they are far from it, but their values might possibly yield some good results. Unfortunately, the more they fail, the more it appears as a black mark on the philosophy.
for an Objectivist?!