Objectivism

-- hmmmhmmmmhmmmm (therewasthisboy@who.com), March 30, 2001

Answers

The Rights and Wrongs of Ayn Rand

-- hecouldntquiteexplainit (they@alwaysjusthadbeenthere.com), March 30, 2001.

WHY I AM NOT AN OBJECTIVIST

-- crash (test@dummies.com), March 30, 2001.

Three Objections Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics

-- hmmmhmmmhmmm (hmmmm@hmmmm.com), March 30, 2001.

Nat finds himself

-- penelope pooh (ppooh@yahoo.com), March 30, 2001.

Fair use yada yada yada

"Objectivity 'N' Me: A True Confession By Scott Ryan

In case any humor-impaired Objectivists visit this site, I should make clear that the following is not a "true confession" at all but a biting piece of satire that has driven several people I know of, and maybe others I don't know of, to the realization that they have outgrown Rand's pesky little cult. By the way, most of the humor won't be funny unless you know Rand's writings and personal history fairly well.

My tendency to poke fun at Objectivists' alleged "objectivity" may have left some of you with the impression that I'm opposed to objectivity itself.

In fact, nothing could fail less completely to be further from falsehood. I would never make fun of objectivity. I know better than that -- from experience. And I'd like to share my story with you.

You see, once, in my youth, recently married and shortly after being thrown out of architectural school for walking through town naked in full sunlight, I made a terrible and profound error. I made the mistake of (God, this is hard to talk about!) briefly, just ever so briefly, allowing myself to desire the unearned. Oh, it was just a momentary indulgence -- but the results were not pretty.

Some of you less devout Objectivists may not think this was a big deal. But A is A, and a principle had been breached. I had chosen to operate on a premise of death.

I was so completely disoriented that I plunged at once into total whim-worship. Like a man possessed, I began shouting profanities -- "A is non-A! Contradictions exist!" -- and ran out into the street, found some small children, and VISIBLY REFRAINED from checking my premises RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF THEM.

And -- I'm ashamed to admit -- I even TOLD them that's what I was doing, and encouraged them to do the same. God, I even told them it was okay to vote for a woman president! Oh, how they cried! ("But Mommy couldn't be president, could she? She worships Daddy! WAHHHHHH!!!")

In the very midsummer of my madness, I was just at the point of asking them either to live for my sake or to allow me to live for theirs.

What finally brought me up short was a . . . well, almost a mystical experience.

I know, I know -- but I was really out of touch with reality. I now know that it was merely my own psycho-epistemology integrating an implicit value-judgment and presenting it to my conscious mind in the form of an easily-grasped percept. But at the time, it didn't seem so easy to explain without gobbledygook.

Anyway: I swear I heard the voice of Maria Montessori call me a "comprachico."

Well, you can bet I started checking my premises then. At once I asked the children to watch me forgive myself for my irrationality. I assured them that it was metaphysically impossible for a woman to be president, or even to run anything more complex than the very simplest of transcontinental railroads. I then told them never, ever to put anything before the verdict of their own minds, even if a stranger told them to. Or not to. Or whatever.

They just cried harder, but I didn't care; other people had ceased to exist for me.

Then I came back into the house and engaged in some seriously rational activity -- the tango, as my new bride had heard me coming and thoughtfully put on some of my tiddley-wink music. After a couple of passes across the floor, a pack and a half of cigarettes, several cups of coffee, and a little handful of diet pills, I was fine again - - having returned myself to a premise of life.

My wife spotted the change at once. Relieved, she took out a dollar- sign cigarette.

I offered her a light. "I thank you," she said, just barely stressing the "I."

"Don't thank me," I said. "That was the most selfish thing you've ever seen a man do."

"I know," she replied. "That's why I'm thanking you."

At that, my gaunt and angular eyebrows (which, incidentally, were and are the exact color of ripe orange rind) shot skyward. "You understand that?" I said. "You understand that I didn't just want you to have a light -- I wanted you to have it from me?"

She laughed gauntly and angularly. "That's the way I wanted it, Scott. From you."

Well, naturally, I raped her on the spot. Afterwards, we smoked rationally. As a tribute to the orgasm that was mine -- and could have been hers.

And -- thank the benevolent universe! -- we've done the same every night since. You see, to know how to say "I love you," one must first know how to say the "I" -- and one must be very, very careful never to get around to the "you."

And I say with all due modesty -- i.e. none -- that I never have.

We're teaching our children to do likewise -- Dominique, the twins Bjorn and Ragnar, and little Faustin. (We had planned to name our next child Lorne Dieterling, but it's looking as though we may never get around to having another.) When we play Concepts-In-A-Hat, we don't play teams. It's every person -- every man! -- for himself.

And we all objectively agree with Ayn Rand about everything -- almost. I'm the sole holdout on one eensy-weensy little issue: I don't think an ideal human society would include an institution with a territorial monopoly on the legal use of retaliatory force. I think that's a clear recipe for tyranny and a direct violation of the Second Amendment; my wife and kids think I'm objectively nuts.

But life goes on. And such trivial disagreements mean merely that we're engaged in philosophy, not religion.

So don't tell me about objectivity, Buster. If this be whim-worship, make the most of it.

I've let my mind and my love of existence decide. And don't you forget it."

-- hmmmm (hmmmm@hmmm.com), March 30, 2001.

Ayn Rand

-- hmmm (hmmm@hmmm.com), March 30, 2001.

hmmmmmmm,

I'm sorry -- I just noticed your post.

Contrary to what some people might think, I'm NOT a Rand cultist. I do see weaknesses and problems with some of her positions. And the Branden essay I'm pretty much in agreement with. But, IMHO, no one, to my knowledge, has ever come close to refuting her metaphysics (theory of the nature of reality) and epistemology (theory of how we acquire knowledge), which are the most crucial aspects of any philosophical system. (Her ethics, politics and esthetics flow from those.)

Since you posted so much material, though, if you would point out what you feel are the most important criticisms, I'll be happy to discuss them with you. And I'm also looking forward to learning as well -- maybe you can show me something I've overlooked.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 01, 2001.

Eve: "... no one, to my knowledge, has ever come close to refuting her metaphysics (theory of the nature of reality) and epistemology (theory of how we acquire knowledge)"

Has it occured to you how difficult it is to "refute" a metaphysics or an epistimology - since one deals with the effects of the non-physical on the physical world and the other deals with how knowledge arises out of non-knowledge.

Refutation is rather difficult without grounds to stand on and the grounds to stand on do not exist until an epistimology is in place. Therefore, any internally consistant system is irrefutable - although it may be entirely incompatible with other internally consistant systems, which are equally irrefutable.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 01, 2001.

Hi Little Nipper,

[(metaphysics) deals with the effects of the non-physical on the physical world...]

Please elaborate. Where do you get a “non-physical” world from?

[(epistemology) deals with how knowledge arises out of non-knowledge.]

Knowledge doesn’t arise out of non-knowledge. It arises from the interaction of our reasoning minds with reality. We acquire knowledge as our minds form concepts which are based on perceptual data from reality.

[Refutation is rather difficult without grounds to stand on and the grounds to stand on do not exist until an epistemology is in place. Therefore, any internally consistent system is irrefutable – although it may be entirely incompatible with oeter internally consistent systems, which are equally irrefutable.]

Astrology and Freudian psychology are internally consistent without a tie to reality/existence. Objectivist epistemology is internally consistent AND tied to reality/existence. And that’s why refutation of THIS system is not only “difficult” –- IMO, it’s actually, well, impossible -- because you’d have to go outside of reality and reason to attempt to do it.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 02, 2001.