Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Challenge: Explain Objectivism While Standing on One Foot
As the story goes, the great Rabbi Hillel, whose life spanned the birth of Christ, was asked by a Gentile to explain the Torah while he stood on one foot. In other words, “give me the condensed version.”
Hillel’s response has since been identified as the Golden Rule:
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary; go and study.”
Ever since a pro-life activist friend of mine described the problem of trying to converse with “objectivists” on her campus missions, I’ve been trying to figure out what “Objectivism” is. I won’t pretend to have done a lot of study on the subject, because, frankly, it sounds like some sort of materialist Gnosticism to me, but recently my curiosity was piqued again by Robert Tracinski’s article on The Federalist: Confessions of a Reluctant Culture Warrior.
Let’s be honest. It’s kind of thrilling when one of your occasional allies seems to concede some of your most cherished arguments. So I’m reading Tracinski’s article with Sally’s (as in When Harry Met Sally) diner enthusiasm:
“…my concern that the left was using the issue to secure the imprimatur of the state for homosexual relationships so they could then use anti-discrimination laws as a bludgeon against religious holdouts.”
Yes!
“Once you gain social and political power, you hold on to it by making your preferred views mandatory, a catechism everyone must affirm, while suppressing all heretical views. In this case, to gain social acceptance of homosexuality, you make the affirmation of gay marriages mandatory while officially suppressing any dissenting religious views.”
Yes! Yes!
The left’s operational concept of freedom is that you are allowed to do and say what you like—so long as you stay within a certain proscribed window of socially acceptable deviation. The purpose of the gay marriage campaign is simply to change the parameters of that window, extending it to include the gay, the queer, the transgendered—and to exclude anyone who thinks that homosexuality is a sin or who wants to preserve the traditional concept of marriage.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
And then, after saying some equally interesting and counter-narrative things about ShirtStorm, GamerGate, MetalGate, gendered toys, and the UVA rape haox (by golly, I think he’s onto a trend!), he spoils the whole mood by offering up Randian Objectivism as the answer.
Ugh. Just give up your God and religion, and we shall overcome the totalitarian Left. Ri-ight.
In the brief reading I have done on the subject, the most succinct (and humorous) explanation of Objectivism is:
There is no God; man is made in His image. /Go read Atlas Shrugged.
Sorry, I can’t remember who gets the attribution, however that last bit is my addition. Obviously it’s someone who’s not a fan.
I’m opening the floor to all comers, though. Anyone have a Twitter-length explanation for Objectivism? And maybe your explanation would benefit by contrasting it with other, better known philosophies — worldviews?
Published in General
Perhaps we might approach the question another way. Rather than identify Objectivism’s leaders of thought, let’s identify its heroes of action. Who are some of the foremost role models of Objectivism?
For example, though Christians often admire great thinkers like Thomas Aquinas (even identifying them as saints), our role models tend to be individuals like Mother Theresa, Therese of Lisieux, or more relatable figures like Ronald Reagan or Walt Disney. Kindness is a focus of Christian role models. Charitable service to others is a hallmark of saints.
Using examples of persons, what are some defining characteristics of an objectivist? Productivity? Self-reliance?
There is a frequent claim that Ayn Rand never wrote about parenthood, perhaps because of M Scott Peck’s statement to that effect in The Road Less Travelled. But in fact she did have a parent of whom she approved appear fleetingly in Atlas Shrugged. This parent was a woman whose highest value was the creation and raising of new lives. So Rand saw parenthood not as a community activity, but as an individual one (like most other things in her view).
Obviously this was pretty extreme. In reality, people are the beneficiaries of their communities throughout childhood.
That said, the question of the extent a grown child has an obligation to that community is not always clear. And if community expectations are at odds with the purpose the grown child sees within him or herself, what should that young person do?
So a surprise birthday party is simple assault?
Thank you, Stephen. This has been extremely helpful.
Yes, I’ve been wondering if we might have (non-fictional) examples.
From Ayn Rand, herself (http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/introducing-objectivism.html):
”
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”
“
One item to note: yes, Ayn Rand (born Alise Rosenbaum) did escape from Russia, but when she arrived in New York she did, initially, have to rely on the charity of others until she made her own way. That’s no slap at anyone, but given her positions on charity it’s no credit to her that she did not acknowledge the charity she received.
I should think a lot of self-made 19th-century businessmen fit the bill: indeed, googling “Andrew Carneige Ayn Rand” produced this apparent hagiography as its first hit.
And while I can’t say for certain without reading the whole article — sorry, not subscribing — I’d wager that the “richest” in the title isn’t merely referencing his material wealth.
And being a good salesman is fraud.
I’m not an Objectivist, but I do believe in an objective reality, including objective morality.
The problem with Objectivism is that it’s either obviously wrong or obviously uncontroversial. People don’t do everything in their own self interest, unless you include everything that someone does as being a manifestation of their own self interest, which is a tautology and means Objectivism adds nothing.
This isn’t to say that Objectivism doesn’t get a lot of things right, it just doesn’t add any truth that you don’t get from many other philosophies.
It also seems to presume a lot. Say, about the human ability to know and process information. Does one really know one’s own limits or potential? Does one even know one’s own self-interest? Many a divorcee would beg to differ, I suspect.
Which is not to suggest that arranged marriages are necessarily the way to go…
The bolded text displays the dichotomy perfectly. Belief and Fact (or Truth, for that matter) are two separate things but with human beings the two are frequently conflated.
Facts are fairly granular things, while beliefs try to bridge and smooth over the rough edges of those grains. You believe that there is a God – but the existence of that God is not a fact; it is a belief.
The issue with Objectivism as I see it is that it posits reality to which we have to adhere… but the truth of that reality is fundamentally unknowable to us and trying to bridge the gaps in our knowledge with belief is equally unsatisfying.
Objectivism is a form of dogmatism that brooks no dissent. The problem with reality is… there always seem to be exceptions and corner cases that drown out attempts to neatly tack it down with one overarching philosophy, and most of the time those cases involve irrational behavior by human beings.
Irrational behavior is the irreduceable stumbling block and we’ll never be rid of it.
Even defining “irrational” (or rational) is tricky. What is rational to me may seem totally bonkers to you.
Blowing yourself up because you’re going to get 72 Virgins and eat honeyed cakes next to a river of wine after you die is irrational.
Proposing to causing trillions of dollars of economic damage on the basis of the outputs of what amount to expensive and complicated video games is irrational.
Pretending that bread and wine will rearrange themselves on a molecular level into flesh and blood because of the words of institution is irrational.
Walking around saying “Hands up, Don’t shoot” is irrational.
Believing that food with the “organic” label on it is better for you in any way, shape or form than regular food is irrational.
Thinking that the relative costs of vaccination outweigh the relative benefits is irrational.
The aforementioned represent behaviors whose irrationality ranges from the meaningless to venal/wasteful to the socially corrosive all the way up to murderously psychotic, and we deal with the consequences of them every day. Everybody is subject to some form of irrationality that doesn’t comport well with reality. It’s the curse of humanity.
Ugh… formatting is a major sin on Ricochet today. Irrational, all the way down.
Perhaps you might refrain from stating what others believe, Maj, as you’ve completely bollixed it. The Catholic claim is not that you’d see the consecrated wine and bread as blood and flesh under a microscope. You’re playing on people’s ignorance.
Just as a little exercise in reason, if one begins with the presupposition that God created the universe (reality) from nothing by speaking words, “Let there be light…” — and as opposed to the universe coming from nothing (which violates a most basic philosophical concept of contingency) — and then you accept that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity (which, I realize, you don’t) — it is not irrational to understand that what Jesus said about himself and at the institution of the Eucharist created (and continues to create) a reality we Catholics call the Real Presence.
I’m not demanding that you or anyone else believe it. I’m simply asking you to credit the logic of it.
I agree with you, however, that the human condition is blighted by irrationality — and no one escapes it. Not even objectivists.
Actually the Church teaches the truth of it — the Fall bespeaking our human nature in a dimmed intellect and an assertive will.
Coming back to the Hillel quote, I think you could get pretty far by answering WC’s challenge with:
Again, I don’t think this is quite as good an answer as Rand thought it was — that would be a high order indeed — but I think it does get the job done of answering the challenge, at least so far as ethics goes (which, admittedly, is all Hillel’s quote addressed).
The underlying presupposition is the problem, you see. The notion that the universe in its infant form (at T=0) conforms to any sort of rational analysis is also a problem; because we cannot observe anything that happened past that barrier any explanation that satisfies the conditions that we currently observe works equally well. That is the realm of metaphysics.
Point of clarification however: There was no “light” at the beginning of the universe – at least, no light as we would notice. The energy levels were far too high for what we would observe as light to exist and the density of the universe was so high as to be practically opaque.
If the Bible had said “Let there be Gamma rays…”
Where did the Gamma rays come from?
Please don’t turn this into another fruitless debate about religion. We all have our epistemological preferences that speak to us more than others.
In the end, though, it shouldn’t matter. Objectivism is not premised on all humans acting rationally at all times. Rather, it is premised on the general human capacity for reason. From that premise, arrives at conclusions similar to Judeo-Christian and classical liberal ones on human dignity: That humans are elevated above other animals; that they, by right, have dominion over nature (provided that they follow its laws); and that no human by right rules over another. Judaism derived these ideas from the fact that Adam was created in God’s image; Rand derived these ideas from the human capacity for reason.
Objectivism says that if a person behaves irrationally, he or she will eventually run up against the other tenets: that “A is A”, that “nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed”, etc. (and I understand “nature” in this context to be human nature as well as physical nature). This provides a strong incentive to hone one’s reasoning and to behave more rationally.
“I shall live my life for no man, and expect no one to live theirs for me”.
I think that Objectivism is a sort of secular faith practiced by a tiny subset of intellectuals. Dennis Prager has called leftism the most dynamic religion of the 20th century, and I believe he is correct. Objectivism is sort of a shadowy reflection of the cult of Leftism.
All of the structures of religion are carefully reconstructed within it; there are heretics, holy objects, a relevatory prophetess and required devotions.
From that premise, arrives at conclusions similar to Judeo-Christian and classical liberal ones on human dignity: That humans are elevated above other animals; that they, by right, have dominion over nature (provided that they follow its laws); and that no human by right rules over another.
Unfortunately, discussions I have had with Objectivists have displayed the limitations of the Objectivist concept of “human dignity” — abortion is A-OK with Objectivism. Humans born with severe mental defects have no rights.
If you want a look at the unsavoriness of Objectivism, go to the Objectivism online forum and do a search for threads pertaining to those two topics.
Here’s the goddess Rand herself on the subject of the handicapped:
“I think it’s a monstrous thing — the whole progression of everything they’re doing — to feature, or answer, or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped, including, you know, the kneeling buses and all kinds of impossible expenses. I do not think that the retarded should be ~allowed~ to come ~near~ children. Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they’re interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something ~they~ have to live down to.”
What’s the require devotion?
Obeisance to the person of Ayn Rand, mostly.
Well, The Secret sold 20 million copies, so … yeah.
Oh. Well, as an Objectivist, I have no such requirement.
Holding Objectivism responsible for Ayn Rand not living up to it is the same mistake others make in dismissing Christianity because Christians can’t live up to it either.
And this is why Objectivist philosophy will always fail. A fairly high percentage of the population are easily hoodwinked by salesmen of snake oil and seduced by the blandishments of leftist demagogues who promise them joy at somebody else’s expense.
A person may happily live their life with Objectivist principles, but must concede that the boundary constraint of that philosophy is humanity itself if they are truly as rational as they think they are.