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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 147 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Salamandyr: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.

    I can because it’s an impossible bar to cross on entirely observable, rational grounds.

    As a species we simply aren’t up to the task of living as Objectivists would have us live, which is merely one reason why religion is so successful and Objectivism is so boutique.

    • #91
  2. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Fred Cole:

    Majestyk:

    Fred Cole:

    What’s the require devotion?

    Obeisance to the person of Ayn Rand, mostly.

    Oh. Well, as an Objectivist, I have no such requirement.

    I think you mainly identify as an Objectivist for nostalgic reasons. The same reason that I really like Paul Ryan and it bothers me when people rag on him even though we probably don’t agree on much anymore.

    • #92
  3. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Fred Cole:

    Majestyk:

    Obeisance to the person of Ayn Rand, mostly.

    Oh. Well, as an Objectivist, I have no such requirement.

    Hmm.  None other than Nathaniel Branden, first disciple of and concubine of Ayn Rand would disagree with your self-characterization as an Objectivist, then.  Here is Branden’s list of principles:

    • Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived.
    • Atlas Shrugged is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world.
    • Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man’s life on earth.
    • Once one is acquainted with Ayn Rand and/or her work, the measure of one’s virtue is intrinsically tied to the position one takes regarding her and/or it.
    • No one can be a good Objectivist who does not admire what Ayn Rand admires and condemn what Ayn Rand condemns.
    • No one can be a fully consistent individualist who disagrees with Ayn Rand on any fundamental issue.
    • Since Ayn Rand has designated Nathaniel Branden as her “intellectual heir,” and has repeatedly proclaimed him to be an ideal exponent of her philosophy, he is to be accorded only marginally less reverence than Ayn Rand herself.
    • But it is best not to say most of these things explicitly (excepting, perhaps, the first two items). One must always maintain that one arrives at one’s beliefs solely by reason.

    Anybody who would willingly affirm this gibberish is nothing more than a cultist fanboy.  To that extent, I’m glad to say that you’re probably not an Objectivist.

    • #93
  4. user_18586 Thatcher
    user_18586
    @DanHanson

    Percival:

    Dan Hanson: Fraud is a form of coercion, both to Objectivists and Libertarians. So is extortion, bribery, and other means of deceiving or forcing someone else to do what you want if they would not choose to take that action had they known all relevant details or otherwise been unimpeded in their rational decision-making.

    So a surprise birthday party is simple assault?

    I’m not sure if you’re being serious here or cracking a joke.  In case you are serious… NO.  Not unless the surprise party involved an intent to damage someone.

    You know, fraud today is actually illegal,  but I don’t think there are too many arrests of infamous  surprise birthday party planners.

    • #94
  5. user_18586 Thatcher
    user_18586
    @DanHanson

    Mike H:

    And being a good salesman is fraud.

    It most certainly is NOT.  Are you under the impression that to be a good salesman you have to lie and cheat people?

    The proper job of a salesperson is to represent your product fairly and honestly,  while showing your potential customers how they can benefit from it.  In technical sales it’s also to help your customer determine requirements and to act as a bridge between customers and engineers.

    Anyone who thinks being a salesman involves deceit and fraud  is simply wrong.  Of course there are deceitful salespeople out there.  But then, there are accountants who embezzle from their clients,  but I don’t think anyone would say being an accountant requires you to be an embezzler.

    • #95
  6. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Dan Hanson: but I don’t think there are too many arrests of infamous  surprise birthday party planners.

    My father in law would have happily made a citizen’s arrest when someone sprung such a party on him.

    • #96
  7. user_129448 Inactive
    user_129448
    @StephenDawson

    Fred Cole:Oh. Well, as an Objectivist, I have no such requirement.

    Fred, may I ask whether your self-definition is an expression of your agreement with the principles of Objectivism only, or whether you are a member in good standing with one of the larger Objectivist communities?

    I ask because I’ve formed the impression over the years that such communities can be extremely intolerant of any deviationism (and, yes, I fully mean any associations that word may conjure in the reader’s mind).

    • #97
  8. user_18586 Thatcher
    user_18586
    @DanHanson

    Majestyk:

    ingly affirm this gibberish is nothing more than a cultist fanboy. To that extent, I’m glad to say that you’re probably not an Objectivist.

    Are you sure he didn’t say these things sarcastically?  Branden had a very public falling out with Rand.  This sounds like something he might have said derisively after being excommunicated from her inner circle.

    • #98
  9. Salamandyr Inactive
    Salamandyr
    @Salamandyr

    Majestyk:

    Salamandyr: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.

    I can because it’s an impossible bar to cross on entirely observable, rational grounds.

    As a species we simply aren’t up to the task of living as Objectivists would have us live, which is merely one reason why religion is so successful and Objectivism is so boutique.

    by the same token, we are not up to the task of living as Christianity would have us live, which is what makes Christs sacrifice necessary.

    Simply because a standard is impossible is not sufficient reason to abandon it.

    • #99
  10. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Majestyk: 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.

    “I believe” is simply a way of expressing which set of facts I accept as true based on the evidence available to me.  For instance:

    • I believe the Earth is millions of years old.  I do not believe in a 7-day creation.
    • I believe the moon landing actually happened.
    • I believe I am made of millions of living cells.
    • I believe I have an immortal soul.
    • I do not believe in bigfoot.
    • #100
  11. Salamandyr Inactive
    Salamandyr
    @Salamandyr

    Those things you posit as “beliefs” aren’t facts, but conclusions.

    • #101
  12. user_280840 Inactive
    user_280840
    @FredCole

    Stephen Dawson: Fred, may I ask whether your self-definition is an expression of your agreement with the principles of Objectivism only, or whether you are a member in good standing with one of the larger Objectivist communities? I ask because I’ve formed the impression over the years that such communities can be extremely intolerant of any deviationism (and, yes, I fully mean any associations that word may conjure in the reader’s mind).

    Okay, so, no, I’m not a member of any groups.  I occasionally visit the Objectivist Living message board, but that’s very rare.

    So there’s basically two views.  One is that Objectivism is a closed system.  That’s the Leonard Peikoff view.  The other is that Objectivism is an open system that can benefit from outside thought and influence.

    Leonard Peikoff was Ayn Rand’s legal heir.  She left everything to him.  Peikoff forms the Ayn Rand Institute a couple of years after Rand died.  Around 1990, he has a falling out with a guy named David Kelley over this open system/closed system thing.

    David Kelley splits off and forms The Atlas Society.  And they welcomed in all the old Rand associated (Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, et al.) who Rand had excommunicated (as it were) from the Movement.

    So that’s where that is.  It is what it is.  There’s all kinds of high drama.  I’m not part of it.  What I’ve just said here is the extent of my knowledge of the situation.

    • #102
  13. user_280840 Inactive
    user_280840
    @FredCole

    Stephen Dawson: Fred, may I ask whether your self-definition is an expression of your agreement with the principles of Objectivism only,

    Oh,to answer your question direction, it’s an expression of my agreement with the principles.  I try to live my life by them.  Objectivism is the softwear I run my life on, as it were.

    • #103
  14. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Dan Hanson:

    Majestyk:

    ingly affirm this gibberish is nothing more than a cultist fanboy. To that extent, I’m glad to say that you’re probably not an Objectivist.

    Are you sure he didn’t say these things sarcastically? Branden had a very public falling out with Rand. This sounds like something he might have said derisively after being excommunicated from her inner circle.

    Indeed he did have a falling-out with Rand.  It had mostly to do with the fact that he couldn’t see his way to being sexually attracted to a woman who so closely resembled Helen Thomas while being married to another woman.

    Branden did write these things in Judgment Day, and he wasn’t being sarcastic.  He was elucidating the principles by which Rand’s inner circle conducted themselves.

    • #104
  15. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Majestyk:

    Joseph Stanko:

    Does anyone seriously dispute that?

    Of course we disagree on which facts are facts, for instance I believe that God exists…

    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.

    Perhaps they are frequently conflated because we cannot entirely disentangle the two in practice. While most of us can imagine the two being completely disentangled in theory and most of us even believe that the world really works that way, in practice, human records of facts rely on humans’ prior beliefs.

    For example, I can easily imagine that temperature is a reality that exists independent of what I believe about temperature, but as soon as I endeavor to measure an actual temperature, I rely on prior human beliefs about temperature, such as: temperature is going to influence my measurement device in a predictable, useful way; the (human-imposed) scale I’m using to measure the temperature is a meaningful one; etc.

    So yeah, I imagine temperature (or any other physical quantity) “really existing” “out there”, independent of any of my opinions about temperature, but I also rely on my opinions about temperature to measure it.

    • #105
  16. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Joseph Stanko:

    “I believe” is simply a way of expressing which set of facts I accept as true based on the evidence available to me. For instance:

    • I believe the Earth is millions of years old. I do not believe in a 7-day creation.
    • I believe the moon landing actually happened.
    • I believe I am made of millions of living cells.
    • I believe I have an immortal soul.
    • I do not believe in bigfoot.

    The things that you’ve listed are sort of a mishmash of facts, beliefs and an unprovable negative.

    There is plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that 1, 2 and 3 actually happened.  We can test them.  We can observe that they occurred or are representative of reality as we apprehend it.

    4 is clearly a belief.  There’s no evidence for it – and I would say that although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence it is a hard hurdle to clear.

    5 is simply better stated as “there’s no evidence for Bigfoot’s existence.”  I mean, I believe that too, but my belief is subject to being overturned the moment somebody presents us with body of the Bigfoot that they killed – so that is different in kind than belief or disbelief in an immortal soul.

    • #106
  17. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Majestyk: 5 is simply better stated as “there’s no evidence for Bigfoot’s existence.”  I mean, I believe that too, but my belief is subject to being overturned the moment somebody presents us with body of the Bigfoot that they killed – so that is different in kind than belief or disbelief in an immortal soul.

    Your disbelief in your own immortal soul is subject to being overturned the moment you die and find that you still exist, face-to-face with your Maker who demands an account of your life and how you spent it.

    • #107
  18. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Joseph Stanko:

    Majestyk: 5 is simply better stated as “there’s no evidence for Bigfoot’s existence.” I mean, I believe that too, but my belief is subject to being overturned the moment somebody presents us with body of the Bigfoot that they killed – so that is different in kind than belief or disbelief in an immortal soul.

    Your disbelief in your own immortal soul is subject to being overturned the moment you die and find that you still exist, face-to-face with your Maker who demands an account of your life and how you spent it.

    You realize of course that my belief is out of resignation and not joy, correct?  I chalk it up as yet another one of the things over which I have no control.  Like Woody Allen, I don’t fear death, I just don’t want to be there when it happens.

    Anyways, I merely think that if people were clear-eyed about the likelihood of what happens to them after they die then people would plan more appropriately for the eventuality.  But I could be wrong.  Cities could burn and society could crumble.  I doubt we’ll ever have a chance to find out.

    • #108
  19. user_129448 Inactive
    user_129448
    @StephenDawson

    Fred Cole:

    Stephen Dawson: Fred, may I ask whether your self-definition is an expression of your agreement with the principles of Objectivism only,

    Oh,to answer your question direction, it’s an expression of my agreement with the principles. I try to live my life by them. Objectivism is the softwear I run my life on, as it were.

    Thanks Fred. I can think of many worse sets of principles by which one might try to live one’s life.

    As I’ve intimated above, my major problem with Objectivism is its sense of certainty, primarily because I view many, perhaps most, of the world’s problems to be the result of the people acting with confidence on false principles and knowledge.

    Anyway, FWIW, there are two books that forced me to do major rethinks (in my thirties, not as a youngster). One was Atlas Shrugged. The other was Hayek’s The Fatal Conceit. The latter is subtitled ‘The Errors of Socialism’, but it’s much more than that. It a powerful system for understanding the world as it is.

    • #109
  20. Davematheny3000@yahoo.com Moderator
    Davematheny3000@yahoo.com
    @PainterJean

    I try to live my life by them. Objectivism is the softwear I run my life on, as it were.

    Fred, do you agree, then, with the Objectivist position that the mentally retarded have no rights? Ayn Rand didn’t think children should be exposed to the handicapped — do you agree with that? Also, how do you square the idea of non-aggression with the Objectivist endorsement of abortion up until the moment of birth? That would seem to be irrational, because it doesn’t rely upon embryology (a baby one day before birth is not notably different from a newborn baby), but rather relies upon the arbitrary distinction of location — that is, where a baby is determines whether or not it’s an individual. How is that rational?

    When one peruses Objectivist sites, it’s remarkable how many Objectivists use characters from Rand’s books to illustrate principles and as role models (“Dagny would do this/not do this because…), rather than real people. It’s a bit creepy, and I see it as an indication of the unreal nature of Objectivism. People may fail to live up to Christianity, but we do have real stories of real saints who did indeed succeed and who model Christian living. In contrast, Objectivists cite make-believe characters.

    • #110
  21. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Majestyk: You realize of course that my belief is out of resignation and not joy, correct?  I chalk it up as yet another one of the things over which I have no control.

    Precisely, that’s my point.  It’s out of your control (and mine) because it’s a question of objective fact.

    It is not different in kind from the existence of Bigfoot.  Either immortal souls really do exist, in objective reality, or I am mistaken in my belief about them.  I could be wrong.

    We disagree about a question of fact: do we have immortal souls?  But we both agree on the basic premise that the question has a correct answer one way or the other, and that neither my hope nor your resignation can change that answer.

    • #111
  22. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Stephen Dawson:

    One (hyphenated) word: Post-modernists.

    Ok, perhaps I should have said “outside the confines of an insane asylum or a faculty lounge,” but wouldn’t that be redundant?

    • #112
  23. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Joseph Stanko:

    Majestyk: You realize of course that my belief is out of resignation and not joy, correct? I chalk it up as yet another one of the things over which I have no control.

    Precisely, that’s my point. It’s out of your control (and mine) because it’s a question of objective fact.

    It is not different in kind from the existence of Bigfoot. Either immortal souls really do exist, in objective reality, or I am mistaken in my belief about them. I could be wrong.

    We disagree about a question of fact: do we have immortal souls? But we both agree on the basic premise that the question has a correct answer one way or the other, and that neither my hope nor your resignation can change that answer.

    My point is that your question regarding immortal souls is fundamentally unanswerable.  We have no way of knowing the answer because we can’t test the hypothesis.  This unknowable, untestable quality that it possesses makes me suspicious of it, as this is unlike any other phenomenon that we humans regularly encounter, which can be quantified in some fashion.

    Also, I should point out that Christians wouldn’t simply take somebody’s word for it on anything else, but seem incurious to find out if their immortal soul actually exists.  For instance, if I told you I had wrackspurts flying in and out of my head you might consider me… eccentric… and demand evidence.

    Another problem I have is that behind every double standard lies an unconfessed single standard.  Christians would never take at face value the claims of other religions but are perfectly fine with accepting their own claims uncritically.

    Bigfoot is in some sense different.  Bigfoot could exist.  We can test for it.  It would take only one specimen to overturn current understanding.  In some sense we DO have control over it – we could scour the world looking for bigfoot, and once we had exhausted every hiding place possible where it might be hiding we could justifiably conclude that it does not exist.

    • #113
  24. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Joseph Stanko:

    Stephen Dawson:

    One (hyphenated) word: Post-modernists.

    Ok, perhaps I should have said “outside the confines of an insane asylum or a faculty lounge,” but wouldn’t that be redundant?

    One is well-compensated and the others are involuntary guests?

    • #114
  25. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Majestyk: we could scour the world looking for bigfoot, and once we had exhausted every hiding place possible where it might be hiding we could justifiably conclude that it does not exist.

    And we can confidently conclude that without exhausting every hiding place. Conclusion doesn’t imply absolute certainty, and requiring that would mean we are radical skeptics instead of rational skeptics.

    If you don’t have absurd beliefs though, you can’t have strong religions, because otherwise you can’t signal your commitment to the group. Believing that “Thou shalt not kill” does nothing to signal you are a Catholic, but saying that use of condoms could send you to hell sends a very strong signal.

    • #115
  26. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Majestyk: My point is that your question regarding immortal souls is fundamentally unanswerable.  We have no way of knowing the answer because we can’t test the hypothesis.

    In this life, perhaps.  The test occurs when we die.

    Now granted if you are right, after I die I will no longer exist to experience my own non-existence, so while you will be proven right I will never have the opportunity to concede that you were right all along.

    However if I am right, after your death you will realize I was right.  And then I hope and pray we will meet in Heaven one day and when we do you’re buying the first round.

    • #116
  27. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Majestyk: Christians would never take at face value the claims of other religions but are perfectly fine with accepting their own claims uncritically.

    Seriously?  How many Christians have you actually met?

    Surely you’ve seen some of the threads where we debate creationism, or birth control, or whether Mormons are Christians, or the latest quote from Pope Francis.  Christians are extremely critical of claims made by other Christians, sometimes to a fault.

    • #117
  28. user_18586 Thatcher
    user_18586
    @DanHanson

    Joseph Stanko:

    Your disbelief in your own immortal soul is subject to being overturned the moment you die and find that you still exist, face-to-face with your Maker who demands an account of your life and how you spent it.

    But until then,  there is no way to know it is true, and therefore it is outside the boundaries of reason and science, and therefore cannot be claimed as ‘fact’.  Your own religious beliefs agree with that,  which is why you are required to have ‘faith’.  If the existence of the soul was a matter of objective, discoverable fact,  you would not need faith to believe in a creator.

    In any event,  saying that something is a matter of objective reality because it either exists or doesn’t  is nonsensical – the same argument could be used to claim that the existence of giant pink flying unicorns is a ‘fact’.  Hey, they either exist or they don’t.  Who’s to say?

    • #118
  29. Majestyk Member
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    Joseph Stanko:

    Majestyk: Christians would never take at face value the claims of other religions but are perfectly fine with accepting their own claims uncritically.

    Seriously? How many Christians have you actually met?

    Surely you’ve seen some of the threads where we debate creationism, or birth control, or whether Mormons are Christians, or the latest quote from Pope Francis. Christians are extremely critical of claims made by other Christians, sometimes to a fault.

    All kinds.  Charismatics, Catholics, Mormons, Lutherans, Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists.  I was confirmed as a Lutheran.  I can recite the Lord’s Prayer and Nicene Creed upon command.

    I don’t mean disagreement over arcane points of dogma – I mean the central, bedrock tenets of the faith such as The Virgin Birth, the Divinity of Christ, the Forgiveness of Sins and the Resurrection.

    I’ll leave debates regarding the Triune nature of the Lord, Transsubstantiation, Salvation by Grace and Jesus’ excellent adventures in the New World to others to debate.

    • #119
  30. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Dan Hanson: In any event,  saying that something is a matter of objective reality because it either exists or doesn’t  is nonsensical – the same argument could be used to claim that the existence of giant pink flying unicorns is a ‘fact’.

    I believe you are confusing metaphysics with epistemology.  Fred quoted Ayn Rand above:

    Metaphysics: Objective Reality

    Epistemology: Reason

    Ethics: Self-interest

    Politics: Capitalism

    My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

    Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

    Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

    I’m trying to confirm my understanding of the first point, that “Reality exists as an objective absolute.”  This seems to me both obvious and non-controversial, disputed as I said above only by academics and the insane (an overlapping set).

    The existence of God, immortal souls, and Bigfoot all fall into the category of facts about reality, i.e. they either do or don’t exist “independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.”

    The process of determining whether or not these things exist, and how reliable and certain this knowledge can be, are questions in the 2nd bucket: epistemology.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.