Selling points and Stumbling blocks

This is amazingly weird timing but I've been thinking a lot about this lately.
Objectivism, being a wide ranging and deep philosophy has many areas to it. When I look back on my first exposure to it, it hit me how there were many moments when being exposed to a new element of it for the first time often had a major impact on me. In both positive and negative ways.

I think many people may have experienced the philosophy this way. I think this because due to the very nature of the philosophy no one truly takes to it like a sponge and automatically believes each element in and of itself the first time it's revealed. But conversely there are many single elements which can have an amazing impact in and of themselves, and to some degree "hook" a potential student.

In my particular case the single point that had the most resonance with me was Rand's definition and debunking of mysticism. I'd been an atheist for quite a while before discovering Objectivism, so this was a valuable idea for me. I was able to point out countless problems with individual religions, but I was having a hard time finding the underlying problem with religion itself that had been bothering me. When first exposed to this idea it's like a million connections went off in my brain at once, and I knew the biggest part of why I'd rejected this realm of human endeavor.

Conversely, the biggest stumbling block I found was the theory of ethics. There had been bits and pieces of theories like this I'd been exposed to over the years. I'd even developed (and quickly discarded) a similar theory on my own once. But the problem was it just seemed impossible to wrap my mind around the idea of using myself as the central value of morality. This was a problem for me because my atheism (which was slowly giving way to nihilism) was pulling me further and further from anything resembling a moral code. This troubled me because, though I realized there were major flaws in most theories of ethics I'd been exposed, to I still on some level sensed how necessary it was to my life.

So I finish with a question (or rather a series thereof). Am I the only one who discovered Objectivism in this way. Am I the only one who was pulled back and forth, strongly drawn to some elements yet initially repelled by others. If not, what were your selling points and stumbling blocks within Objectivism. And finally (how) should this factor in to how we try to approach others as we seek to expose them to the philosophy which has changed most of our lives.

---Landon

Post 1

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 11:46pm

Good post, Landon.

What attracted me to the philosophy was the idea of rights--that each person has right to his or her own life, a right to be left alone, to live his life as he sees fit, a right not to be interfered with by others. I think this is a very powerful selling point that should have a broad appeal, except to those who are already strongly collectivist and left-wing and believe that we should be controlled for the good of others, or who hold an intrinsicist and patronizing view of morality and believe that we should be controlled for our own good.

I see a fundamental distinction in ethical perspective - between people who believe in authoritarian control and those who believe in independence and freedom. It may even be a sense-of-life issue. But some people positively hate freedom and individual rights, and it is with these people that you do not want to waste your time, because you will never reach them. They have a visceral dislike for individual autonomy and freedom of choice.

What I think is also a strong selling point is the idea of a scientific morality based not on authoritarian commandments, tradition or convention but on human nature itself. Certain non-objectivists (e.g., humanists) may already share this approach in some implicit, undefined manner, but Rand is the first philosopher to make the case explicitly with a well-worked out and logically coherent system of ethics grounded in the requirements of human survival. It is this feature that should appeal to those who already have a secular and scientific orientation.

And then there are the unique and innovative arguments for the foundations of knowledge, the axiomatic concepts, etc., which should appeal to philosophers and philosophy students alike who are seeking answers to the paradoxes of modern philosophy with which the skeptics have successfully befuddled them, and who are searching for a rational world view.

In short, Objectivism offers an alternative to mysticism and skepticism, which should appeal to rational, open minded people who are looking for answers and have been given short shrift by religion and contemporary culture.

- Bill

Post 2

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 9:25am

Landon,

My experience was similar, but reversed. You see, before my "third" birth (I had already been "born again" -- if you know what I mean), I was a wild-eyed mystic -- looking for ways to advance Christian collectivism. I always had had a little doubt about my faith**, but I had used my mind in order to run-with-it anyway. So, for me, the atheism scared the hell out of me (I was, initially, scared to read the "A" section of the AR Lexicon -- and the economics seemed like honey on my tongue. Go firgure.

**Scared into Christianity at a young age (by a church propaganda video: Rapture), I had, at age 12, doubted Billy Graham's integrity (after seeing him live) -- telling my aunts that the problem with religion is it's lack of spirituality.

Ed

Post 3

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 12:17pm

William,

Great response and a lot to digest/discuss. But I think you hit on a great point with identifying the ethical/political reactions of people as possible sense of life issues. It is pretty fundamental is man basically good, out to help himself peacefully and rationally without hurting others in the process, or is he a murderous brute who never thinks about anything but how he can hurt others to further his own ends? A person's response to that question will be their response to Rand's ethics (and subsequently) her politics.

That as well as the scientific approach to epistemology and metaphysics is also a great selling point, up til the point it contradicts someone's favorite mystical flight of fancy. I think that the two prime branches (Metaphysics/Epistemology) act as both simultaneously. Granted the A is A argument can work both for and against you. "The earth is the third planet from the sun" "Gravity is the force that pulls entities toward a larger body" "God is real... A is A" (there's a discussion going on at the solopassion forum called "The final thing in philosophy" where this flaw is made evident). But since it is so strong and final it can be used as a club by people who don't truly understand it.

Also Ed, great post as well. I realize I'm probably the odd man out with my approach, but that's why I wanted to start this thread. I'm aware people wind up approaching the philosophy differently and I think there's something to be learned from how others have approached it in their lives.

---Landon

Post 4

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 6:51pm

Ed,

Just curious. Had you heard of George Smith's book, Atheism: The Case Against God? Probably the best single book there is on the subject.

I can remember when I was 11 years old, and my mother had gone back to college to work on her Master's Degree. We were Catholic, and I thought at the time that there were probably some pretty good arguments against what we believed, especially among the well educated at the university level. So, I asked her if she was worried about having her faith challenged by her university colleagues. She replied, "Oh, I don't worry about it; I just believe." I thought at the time, "How convenient, and how evasive." But I didn't say anything, because I didn't know whether my religion had the final answers or not. It was all I knew at the time, but I thought that it might not.

I didn't become an atheist though until around the age of 20. My conversion was, to some extent, influenced by William Kelley's novel, Gemini, which chronicled the philosophical saga of a young man, Bascomb McGoslin, who gave up a romance with his girlfriend, June ("Knockers") Syszmanski, to join the seminary, and of his eventual disillusionment with Catholicism. It was shortly thereafter that I read Branden's refutation of the First Cause Argument in The Objectivist Newsletter, an argument which had stuck with me ever since I was 9 years old, when a priest first indoctrinated me with it. He pointed to the proverbial oak tree, and asked where it came from? Well, of course, it came from the acorn. Then he asked, where the acorn came from. Of course, it came from the oak tree, and I could see the infinite regress looming on the horizon, a regress that could only be solved by positing a God. Most nine-year olds are powerless in the face of such an argument, and I was no exception. Of course, Ayn Rand, who had become an atheist at the same age, would have seen through it, but I was no Ayn Rand. Still, I doubted that I could defend my religion against competent opposition.

When I was 12, I had a run-in with my baseball coach, a short intellectually provocative Japanese guy by the name of Tom Ono, who used to needle me about my religion and whether I really knew what I was talking about. This was back in 1952 when the world was a pretty staid and conventional place by most standards. Of course, I doubted I did, and I was always a bit intellectually intimidated by him. How dare an adult like him philosophically assault a defenseless 12-year old. I felt like saying, go pick on some intellect your own size! So, I tended to feel a bit insecure about my world view, even though all my friends and associates were Catholic.

I'll never forget the time I went to confession with my family and a friend's family. We had to line up outside the confessional and then go in when it was our turn to confess our sins and ask for forgiveness. Sins included anything sexual (impure thoughts, impure actions, whatever). So I had a few things to confess, and when the priest, who was about 80 years old, heard my sins, he shouted (loud enough for everyone to hear), "You did WHAT??" Jesus, Mary and Joseph, give a break, Father! Then I had to exit the confessional, with everybody staring at me, like I had just murdered the Pope!

Well, as you can imagine, I was glad to get that religious monkey off my back. Atheism was a welcome conversion. Then I found Objectivism, and the rest is doctrinal history...of a decidedly different kind! ;-)

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 2/05, 6:56pm)

Post 5

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 10:00pm

Yea Bill, I've heard about Smith's" A-ism, The case against "D" (utilizing sarcasm here, to show the ultimately arbitrary nature of all religions -- e.g. if a voice speaks to you, then how can you be sure it was "God"; ergo, what method was used?). I actually picked up a copy of his recent work Why Atheism? (2000). Interestingly, he dedicates that work to an RoR member (Jeff Riggenbach).

Loved your personal story (You did what!). I took longer to "pop" than you did, though. I was a Christian soldier religionist until well into my 20's. Heck, I didn't decisively turn O-ist (from R-ist) until after I was in my 30's! So much for that: Rand-appeals-to-irrational-teens-but-"healthy"-adults-grow-out-of-Objectivism quip. Instead, I had "gotten" healthy/happy "through" Rand!

I do see how folks (who fell away) would HAVE to rationalize this way, though (as the cognitive dissonance would be debilitating). As Branden said, it's good to note what folks are reacting against -- when they make an evaluation of something.

Ed

Post 6

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 10:26am

I'm still learning about Oism (among other things I'm learning about). Some statements are applicable for everyone at all times, some are applicable generally, and some are inaccurate. Depends on the individual's context and on reality. My deeply personal relationship with reality and my own mind is much more important to me than anything else. It's unpack, delineate, organize, identify, integration, comparison to reality, understanding, multiple persepctives, and finally, progress. That's usually how I think. Not even Rand's words are exempt from this, because *I'm* not even exempt. :)

Post 7

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 1:45pm

Landon,

I was searching the web for why I couldn't stand having faith. A close friend of mine was a strong fundamentalist Christian, who had asked me what was so wrong with it. I found www.importanceofphilosophy.com, an article on faith. I agreed with it for the most part. I'm so incredibly against accepting ideas as true when one lacks or has contradictory evidence. I can't stand accepting false ideas as true. I can't stand evading or ignoring the truth-- even if the truth is devastating. I make it a priority not to evade the truth. I make it a priority to discover ideas that are consistent with themselves and with reality (using the scientific method and reason).

Conversely, the biggest stumbling block I found was the theory of ethics. There had been bits and pieces of theories like this I'd been exposed to over the years. I'd even developed (and quickly discarded) a similar theory on my own once. But the problem was it just seemed impossible to wrap my mind around the idea of using myself as the central value of morality.

Indeed. Objectivism is a philosophy of science and reason, and the science and reason part is very easy to accept.

Objectivism is unique because it declares that each individual's life and happiness should be the basis of morality. Err, an Objectivist is an individual who has made their morality based on their own ability to live and enjoy their life, who has accepted reason and science as their method for thinking and gaining knowledge.

Secular Humanism is a philosophy of science and reason, yet it declares that the "welfare" of "humanity" is the basis of morality. Err, a secular Humanist is an individual who has made their morality based on the ability of a group of individuals (what is a human? why choose this group? are you a part of this group?) to live (and enjoy life?), who has accepted reason and science as their method for thinking and gaining knowledge.

But now, why should you choose one philosophy over the other, an Objectivist or a Secular Humanist? Or why not make your morality based on something else, like the welfare of trees? The question I am asking now is: what should you choose to be your highest value? What should be the primary thing you act to achieve or keep? If you are dead, you cannot act. If you cannot act, you cannot act to achieve or keep something. It seems to me that if you want to long term be able to act to achieve or keep something, then you must make your own life a very high priority value. So if you want short term, go for Communism, looting, and Secular Humanism; or Forced Inhibition, suicide, and Environmentalism. If you want long term, go for Capitalism, production, and Objectivism. You don't have to choose Objectivism, or one of these other two moral systems, or even choose an extreme. You could choose one moral system, and then later switch to another, and then do a mix, etc etc, its not all or nothing.

Which are you choosing now, and which will you choose through the future?

Also, I wonder, if it might be in some individual's self interest to promote Communism, loot, say they are a Secular Humanist, and actually be an Objectivist? Yet extreme long term, they are probably going to net loose from being a looter. Hmmm.. what an Objectivist considers looting may not be what a Secular Humanist considers looting, and vice versa. It is communism vs capitalism, looters & altruist producers vs rationally selfish producers.

It makes no sense to me that I should individuals that destroy my life and my values (looters). Hence I'm not a Secular Humanist. I value rationally selfish producers and that which altruist producers produce (yet I hate how altruist producers enable looters).

Thanks,
Dean Michael Gores
Reasoner, Scientist, Self-Valuer, Capitalist

Post 8

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 9:04am

Jenna,

================
Some statements are applicable for everyone at all times, some are applicable generally, and some are inaccurate. Depends on the individual's context and on reality.
================

Right. Some statements -- like the absolutism of Reason as our means to knowledge -- are applicable for everyone at all times. Some statements -- like the supremacy of Individual Rights and Capitalism as the only moral social system -- are applicable generally (for "man qua man"). And some statements -- like perception as a "mental process" of integrating individuated sensations -- are inaccurate.

================
My deeply personal relationship with reality and my own mind is much more important to me than anything else. It's unpack, delineate, organize, identify, integration, comparison to reality, understanding, multiple persepctives, and finally, progress.
================

Right. There is a content of a philosophy. Then there is also an individual's interpretation and application of that content to their life. At all times, when applying a philosophy, one ought maintain that a "deeply personal relationship with reality and [their] own mind is much more important to [them] than anything else.

It's important, when first navigating previously uncharted waters, not to through the captain over the side! It's all ABOUT the captain!

Ed

Post 9

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 12:23pm

Dean writes:

Objectivism is unique because it declares that each individual's life and happiness should be the basis of morality.

This is utterly wrong.

Objectivism declares that each individual's life and happiness are and should be his ultimate goal. That goal is best achieved by following a morality that is based on the nature of reality and the nature of man qua man, not any individual's nature.

Objectivism is not hedonism.

Post 10

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 2:10pm

Rick,

I could better phrase it "Objectivism is unique because it declares that for each individual, their own life and long term continual happiness should be the basis of their own morality."

Objectivism declares that each individual's life and happiness are and should be his ultimate goal.

I find that consistent with what I said.

That goal is best achieved by following a morality that is based on the nature of reality and the nature of man qua man, not any individual's nature.

Every man is different, every single one of them. Some of them are producers, some of them are destroyers. Some of them are beggers, some of them are givers. Its not all or nothing. Man qua man sounds collectivistic. Every man is different. Why not say "man qua tree"? Or "man qua nature"? Or man qua... Why do I care about man? What is man? The phrase seems collectivistic to me. Now... I am an individual life form, and I'm unique. My morality is based on my goal, which is to have long term life and happiness. Does this make me something other than an Objectivist?

Objectivism is not hedonism.

Where did I suggest hedonism?

Post 11

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 1:46am

"Right. There is a content of a philosophy. Then there is also an individual's interpretation and application of that content to their life. At all times, when applying a philosophy, one ought maintain that a "deeply personal relationship with reality and [their] own mind is much more important to [them] than anything else."

I think we agree on a lot of things, but not everything. It keeps things interesting! *laugh*

Post 12

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 1:52am

"Now... I am an individual life form, and I'm unique. My morality is based on my goal, which is to have long term life and happiness."

The self-defined value of the individual-- the capacity to say okay to oneself-- each person's pride in his/her uniqueness-- cannot be stated often enough. High-five!

Post 13

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 9:30am

Dean, you wrote,

Every man is different, every single one of them. Some of them are producers, some of them are destroyers. Some of them are beggers, some of them are givers. Its not all or nothing. Man qua man sounds collectivistic. Every man is different. Why not say "man qua tree"? Or "man qua nature"? Or man qua...

Indeed, why not say man qua architect, or man qua doctor, or man qua woman! (What is meant here, of course, is man qua human being.) Yes, every person is an individual, but Rand is talking about what is good for the individual as a human being, not as an architect, doctor, man or woman -- in other words, what is good for a person in virtue of his or her nature as a certain kind of living organism. Rand is simply stressing that in judging what kind of life is proper to a living organism, one must consider the kind of living organism it is. The life proper to a bird is not the life proper to a fish is not the life proper to a dog is not the life proper to a human being.

Why do I care about man? What is man?

A certain kind of living organism. If one is to act in a pro-life manner, one must do so in accordance with the requirements of one's human nature. If a dog is to act in a pro-life manner, it must do so in accordance with the requirements of its canine nature; a cat, in accordance with the requirements of its feline nature, and so on.

The phrase seems collectivistic to me. Now... I am an individual life form, and I'm unique.

Yes, you are unique, but you also share certain biological (i.e., physical and psychological) requirements with other members of your species. In deciding how best to live your life, you must take these requirements into consideration. Back in the 1960's, Betty Friedan wrote a book called The Feminine Mystique, in which she argued that women have the same requirement for creative and productive lives as men do, and that they should not confine themselves solely to the role of being a housewife (not that there's anything wrong with being a mother and raising children, but it should not be the sole occupation to which every woman can and should aspire). What Friedan was doing was invoking the nature of woman qua human being, and arguing that women, because of their psychological nature as human beings have the same need to lead productive and creative lives as men do.

My morality is based on my goal, which is to have long term life and happiness. Does this make me something other than an Objectivist?

No, absolutely not. As Rand said, a person's own happiness is his (or her) highest moral purpose. What distinguishes Objectivism from classical hedonism, is that Objectivism identifies the roots of happiness in man's biological nature. What will make you happy is what is good for your life and furthers your survival. Unlike Objectivism, classical hedonism does not identify happiness as a function of pro-life action. It does not recognize that pleasure and pain, joy and suffering are consequences of, and responses to, what is beneficial or harmful to the life of the organism. Objectivism does, which is what makes the Objectivist ethics more than simply a version of classical hedonism.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/06, 6:09pm)

Post 14

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 12:38am