A Ban on Objectivist Cloning
by Joseph Rowlands
Sometimes the word 'convert' gets thrown around in Objectivist circles. "How many people have you converted to Objectivism?". "I converted to Objectivism ten years ago". I have no problem with this use of the word, even though it sometimes has religious connotations. I think it's great that people try to explain Objectivism to outsiders, and hope to convince them of the truth of it. I think it's a healthier approach than the "Galt's Gulch Brigade", who hate everyone and just want to wait for it all to collapse. If ideas are destroying the world, provide better ideas.
The problem I have is with the people who think every idea is of equal importance. These are like the people who claim Objectivism is whatever Rand said, and not an idea more or less. They have no standard of importance, so they can't say whether some people are closer or farther from Objectivism. Consequently, it's all or nothing. You're either in, or out. You accept everything she said exactly as said, or goodbye.
So what does it mean to convert someone? On one hand you might share with them the fundamentals of a life-affirming philosophy, so they can use it to enhance their own lives. On the other hand, you may just be trying to get them to study and accept an entire doctrine. Are you content with spreading good ideas? Or is it a failure unless you've created an Objectivist clone of yourself?
The benefits of cloning are obvious. You get someone who looks like you, acts like you, and agrees with everything you say. And there's something to be said for people agreeing with you. But there are serious downsides that invalidate any advantage.
The first obvious downside is that you're demanding 100% agreement. Nobody wants to be pressured into changing their mind about how the entire world works. If you push too hard for it, they'll get defensive and ignore everything you say. How many Objectivists have had ruined relationships because they let the acceptance of Objectivism become a requirement?
The second problem is that by giving the impression that they must agree with everything, you essentially deny the possibility that individual ideas can be useful and an improvement. If you explain how honesty can help you by keeping you focused on what's real instead of trying to keep straight a thousand different realities you've concocted in your head, it's useful to everyone even if they don't buy into the rest of Objectivism. If you insist that they can't really accept it unless they accept all of Objectivist ethics, you'll just be undermining your own partial victories.
If you insist that they have to accept everything, you're also pushing a kind of mind-body dichotomy. You're praising the importance of being right, instead of the value gained from being right. It's as if being rational and logical were virtues in themselves, and that they have nothing to do with living. And furthermore, you're preaching that logical consistency is more important than a true connection with reality.
Another problem is that you're stressing agreement, and not necessarily understanding. The results are terrible.
First, you get people focused on whether everyone is in full agreement, instead of whether everyone is right. It's a kind of social subjectivism. For them, obedience to the dogma is of supreme importance.
Second, because they don't really get it, they're not going to put it into practice correctly. And then you have people who are irrational, rude, poor, and horribly unhappy, and they're preaching the philosophy as if they were an example. Talk about one step forward, two steps back.
Third, if they don't understand it, they can't really move past it. Someone who memorizes every word Rand says is not able to think about new ideas. They're not even useful as a sounding board. They'll disagree with anything new. They certainly can't participate in an original conversation.
No, mindless drones are the last thing anyone wants. But if total agreement is the goal, it's a real possibility.
A final problem with cloning is that it assumes the only victories are when you get a person converted entirely. The reality is that spreading good ideas helps in many indirect ways. When people start to accept correct ideas, they'll eventually find their bad ideas contradicting the good ones. The more good ones they have, and the better they're integrated, the more likely the bad ones will eventually be thrown out. So you don't need an immediate victory. By providing good ideas, you give a person the tools to correct his mistakes.
This is also true as far as changing the world is concerned. Spreading good ideas have all kinds of unpredictable side-effects. And when you show one person what's true, they can tell it to their friends, and so on. Even if you don't convince them of it, people will be more likely to hear the idea, and they'll be less afraid of something new.
For all of these reasons, we should ban Objectivist cloning. By all means, continue the process of spreading the ideas. But recognize that these ideas are of value to others, and should be offered as solutions instead of pushed as dogma.
Discuss this Article (60 messages)
|
