Objectivism

[threebyfate]

I'm uncertain of where to post this thread since it's more about quasi-metaphysics which spans a form of meaning of life as well as a way to view the world.

 

Objectivism is a way to view life, albeit it's imperfect, due to the inability for any human being, to be completely objective or logical. Ayn Rand believed that there is one reality, in essence, the "primacy of existence", rather than multiple realities reliant on perception.

 

I'd like to illustrate a really interesting self-awareness component to it, in reference to altruism or lack thereof. This belief is that people pretty much do things, not for altruistic reasons but for personal gain of some kind. It's why I don't believe that too many nice people exist. I see most people as decent individuals, where there are minority factions of extremes, both extreme positivity (Mother Teresa) and negativity (Hitler).

 

Here's a quote from Ayn Rand about the essence of Objectivism:

 

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

 

 

I do encourage people to take a look at Objectivism but when doing so, ensure you keep a strong hold on your humanity. It's a siren call to the narcissistic side to everyone.

 

I'm going to link a wiki article on this, rather than any other site, since any other site could be construed as violating LS rules.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

[alphamale]

yes i would agree that most people do things for personal gain

[Hot Carl]

Rand has the most appeal to young adults who think they should be in charge more and are wondering how much crap they are going to have to take in life. It would be convenient to pretend like you're Howard Roark and don't care about anything or anyone except your own creations. He's a charicature and couldn't function in any world except the one Rand created. I honestly wonder if the rape scene in the Fountainhead isn't all you need to read to understand what she really wanted out of life.

[Kamille]

I think what's interesting in the points you raise about objectivism is that as humans we have no direct access to the 'primacy of life'.

 

I think Ayn Rand's insight, that human's moral compass is their own happiness, is an interesting one, but the conclusion that she drew (on questions of freedom) only serve to reify a vision of humanity as the 'law of the fittest'.

 

Plus, Rand envisioned that humans came with unequal capacities (some smarter, some not as smart) into an equal world. I believe that humans come with unequal capacities into an unequal world - and as such I think there is a space for notions of community, historical redress and welfare.

[threebyfate]

Rand has the most appeal to young adults who think they should be in charge more and are wondering how much crap they are going to have to take in life. It would be convenient to pretend like you're Howard Roark and don't care about anything or anyone except your own creations. He's a charicature and couldn't function in any world except the one Rand created. I honestly wonder if the rape scene in the Fountainhead isn't all you need to read to understand what she really wanted out of life.

I'll openly admit that I was a teenager when first reading The Fountainhead and fell a little in love with Roark, with his self-centered nobility. But then, he's typical of Rand characters, where you question who and what they are and what they stand for, which IMO was her intent.

 

The Fountainhead was to me, like romantic novels would be for many women. It's idealistic to the max but does challenge your perception, rather than being all about...errrr...love...or whatever you want to call "breasts heaving in dismay" would be about.

 

Anyways, Kamille, I also embrace that people are equal, when born, or at least are equal to the extent of what's reasonable and realistic. We all deserve equal rights, as human beings. We also all create the life we live, with our choices.

[Taramere]

I'd like to illustrate a really interesting self-awareness component to it, in reference to altruism or lack thereof. This belief is that people pretty much do things, not for altruistic reasons but for personal gain of some kind. It's why I don't believe that too many nice people exist. I see most people as decent individuals, where there are minority factions of extremes, both extreme positivity (Mother Teresa) and negativity (Hitler).

 

I agree with the notion of people being motivated to altruism by primary or secondary gains, and I think it's a good thing. My first degree was a vocational one in a helping profession. I don't know if the tone of the training has changed now...but back then there was this sense of mild disapproval passed on with regard to the notion of people going into this kind of work to get their own needs met. Which is understandable in the sense of the client's needs must be paramount...but on the other hand, if the helper isn't getting some kind of emotional fulfillment from the work, then they're going to be setting about it with a sense of duty rather than enthusiasm. Which would be pretty unpleasant for the client.

 

 

 

At the same time there was this disapproval, there was also an insistence that "everyone's in it to get their own needs met really." A damned if you do, damned if you don't really. A recognition that people in that profession would have needs, but a sense of horror that any of those needs might be met in the course of work. it was a bit off for people in this profession to have any needs. A bit weak. You should be above having any emotional needs that might be met in the course of this kind of work.

 

I'd sit there thinking well...as long as ethics are adhered to and good results are being achieved for clients, what does it matter that the people doing that job are getting some emotional needs met in the process? Then in the midst of all of this, I read the Fountainhead and my head was really put into a spin. I could never get to grips with the notion that altruism was an evil thing, as she seemed to perceive it.

 

In some ways it almost reflected the teaching of these lecturers who were at the other end of the political spectrum from Rand. Some vague notion that anyone in a vocational profession should be indulging in some level of "I'm not worthy" self flagellation to prevent themselves from feeling in any way good about what they were doing. From (some of) the lecturers' perspective, it was a case of "if you have any emotional needs that might be met in the course of this kind of work, you shouldn't be doing it." From Rand's perspective, it was more like "nobody should be doing this kind of work."

 

On a rational level, what she (Rand) said about altruism made a lot of sense....but I think what she lacked was empathy and the nurturing inclination. On that basis, she wasn't able to really understand the nurturing, role. Could never fully understand the motivation, other than self interest, behind altruism....ie that some people are temperamentally disposed to help. If someone drops their shopping, they'll automatically stop to help them pick things up. Not because they want anything (unless it's someone on a pick-up mission) but because it's just an automatic response - like catching a ball.

 

I think that instinctive reaction to help is often a fundamental part of altruistic people, and one that Ayn Rand probably wasn't too keen to explore. Instincts aren't always rational, after all....but her rational approach to the subject of altruism is indeed fascinating stuff.

[Kamille]

 

Anyways, Kamille, I also embrace that people are equal, when born, or at least are equal to the extent of what's reasonable and realistic. We all deserve equal rights, as human beings. We also all create the life we live, with our choices.

 

If we are all equal and all have equal opportunities, then how should we account for systemic inequalities? For instance: why are women and racial minorities underrepresented in politics or why do certain groups of students succeed better then others?

[threebyfate]

At the same time there was this disapproval, there was also an insistence that "everyone's in it to get their own needs met really." A damned if you do, damned if you don't really. A recognition that people in that profession would have needs, but a sense of horror that any of those needs might be met in the course of work. it was a bit off for people in this profession to have any needs. A bit weak. You should be above having any emotional needs that might be met in the course of this kind of work.

 

I'd sit there thinking well...as long as ethics are adhered to and good results are being achieved for clients, what does it matter that the people doing that job are getting some emotional needs met in the process?

Everyone who's in a fulfilling occupation gets their needs met, whatever they may be. Why this would be viewed as "bad", I also don't agree with, as long as people are open about it. It's when people hide behind "altruism" and martyrdom, that it bothers me.

 

Then in the midst of all of this, I read the Fountainhead and my head was really put into a spin. I could never get to grips with the notion that altruism was an evil thing, as she seemed to perceive it.

My take on her perception is that she's stating that altruism isn't real, rather than it being solely evil.

 

If we are all equal and all have equal opportunities, then how should we account for systemic inequalities? For instance: why are women and racial minorities underrepresented in politics or why do certain groups of students succeed better then others?

Good points and impossible to refute, since there could be many reasons, reliant on individual scenario and the individuals themselves.

 

Let's take one example of why some students succeed and others don't. Would you say that most schooling doesn't take a genius IQ to pass?

[Kamille]

 

Let's take one example of why some students succeed and others don't. Would you say that most schooling doesn't take a genius IQ to pass?

 

Yes. I don't think that schooling measures intelligence so much as it measures compliance to school rules.

[threebyfate]

Yes. I don't think that schooling measures intelligence so much as it measures compliance to school rules.

And do you believe that individuals make the choice about what their major will be, whether they choose to be in compliance with their parents wishes, or choose the actual major(s) themselves? Do you also agree that most individuals can get funding to get a post-secondary degree, one way or another?

[Kamille]

And do you believe that individuals make the choice about what their major will be, whether they choose to be in compliance with their parents wishes, or choose the actual major(s) themselves? Do you also agree that most individuals can get funding to get a post-secondary degree, one way or another?

 

The inequality I speak of doesn't start at a University level.

 

I have seen study after study that show that students get 'tracked' into university, college, technical school or dropping out as early as elementary school.

 

I wasn't thinking so much of post-secondary education as elementary and secondary education.

 

But to answer the question:

 

the individuals who get to consider themselves capable of a university degree do have a choice in what they choose to pick as a major.

 

Interestingly, in North America, the students who make it to university are overwhelmingly from a middle class or upper middle class background which suggests that parental incomes plays a role in the school's 'tracking' process. If parental income is the easiest way to predict who will have the GDP to apply to university, we can conclude that students do not enter grade one on an equal footing.

 

With loans, most individuals who qualify for university degrees can be said to have access to university. An average student loan for an undergrad in Canada currently stands at 30 000$. The maximum loan students can get is about 12 000. Substract tuition (7000$) and the student is left with 5000$ for 8 months. Students usually need to supplement the income either by working part-time (which has been shown to impact their GDP) or through the help of their family. I was lucky enough to have a family that helped me. All my friends who had parental support finished their degrees. Of the ones who worked part-time, none did. So my opinion is that in theory the access is equal, but in reality, it favors students with access to parental income.

[threebyfate]

The inequality I speak of doesn't start at a University level.

 

I have seen study after study that show that students get 'tracked' into university, college, technical school or dropping out as early as elementary school.

 

I wasn't thinking so much of post-secondary education as elementary and secondary education.

 

But to answer the question:

 

the individuals who get to consider themselves capable of a university degree do have a choice in what they choose to pick as a major.

 

Interestingly, in North America, the students who make it to university are overwhelmingly from a middle class or upper middle class background which suggests that parental incomes plays a role in the school's 'tracking' process. If parental income is the easiest way to predict who will have the GDP to apply to university, we can conclude that students do not enter grade one on an equal footing.

 

With loans, most individuals who qualify for university degrees can be said to have access to university. An average student loan for an undergrad in Canada currently stands at 30 000$. The maximum loan students can get is about 12 000. Substract tuition (7000$) and the student is left with 5000$ for 8 months. Students usually need to supplement the income either by working part-time (which has been shown to impact their GDP) or through the help of their family. I was lucky enough to have a family that helped me. All my friends who had parental support finished their degrees. Of the ones who worked part-time, none did. So my opinion is that in theory the access is equal, but in reality, it favors students with access to parental income.

You know I'm a huge proponent of foundational upbringing, greatly affecting our coping tools. Nurture, rather than nature, has more impact.

 

Having said that, I also believe that the average individual doesn't fall through the system, since they're not on the extreme ends of familial abuse or neglect. Just like most people come from middle class families and most have one or two supporting parents, in assorted ways. Where the main difference lies, is the individual themselves, and the way they perceive life and most definitely, the choices they make, even at an elementary school level on upwards.

 

No one forces anyone to get addicted to drugs. Take note of individuals who are siblings, where one gets on the wrong track and starts abusing drugs and the other, ends up with a functional life. If it were solely reliant on either nature or nurture, wouldn't all the siblings would be one way or the other.

[Kamille]

So do you feel that while access to education is equal, certain segment of the population actively choose to do drugs or to fail at school? In other words, do you hold the student, the parent or the school responsible.

 

I agree that nurture plays a huge role in these matter. Right now, the sociology of education is flipping the script on the narrative: saying that the problem of structured inequalities doesn't stem from the individual kids themselves but from the school system: most curriculum, for example, is euro-centric. Studies have shown that black kids in the States get punished more easily for the same behaviour that white kids do and end up having files (example: for eating candy).

 

I guess I feel it's an issue that goes beyond informed individual choices.

[grogster]

Objectivism, at least as practiced by Rand, had a cult-like quality. I get nervous when any philosophy or religion claims that there is one, and only one, Truth and that only true believers may apprehend this one Truth.

 

Ironically, although Rand was very anti-religion, her Objectivism functions as one when it comes to divining the so-called true existence and reason. In my view, a social perspectivism reigns: Nietzsche trumps Rand.

 

I'm also concerned about the network effects involved in living in a society of Randian egoists. Rand appeals to young, intellectual elitists who've not been tested by life. These folks celebrate their claimed superior qualities through their Objectivist beliefs.

 

Objectivism is a justificatory Narcissism for the young, the self-involved and the untested. It's not a philosophy; it's an ideology of the Self. Think Max Stirner.

 

If you doubt me, simply visit an Objectivist dating site.

Edited February 1, 2010 by grogster

[Kamille]

Objectivism, at least as practiced by Rand, had a cult-like quality. I get nervous when any philosophy or religion claims that there is one, and only one, Truth and that only true believers may apprehend this one Truth.

 

Ironically, although Rand was very anti-religion, her Objectivism functions as one when it comes to divining the so-called true existence and reason. In my view, a social perspectivism reigns: Nietzsche trumps Rand.

 

I'm also concerned about the network effects involved in living in a society of Randian egoists. Rand appeals to young, intellectual elitists who've not been tested by life. These folks celebrate their claimed superior qualities through their Objectivist beliefs.

 

Objectivism is a justificatory Narcissism for the young, the self-involved and the untested. It's not a philosophy; it's an ideology of the Self. Think Max Stirner.

 

If you doubt me, simply visit an Objectivist dating site.

 

This has got to be my favorite LS post ever! Thank you Grogster! Looks like I'm finally ready for Nietzsche.

 

Social perspectivism. Love it!

[grogster]

This has got to be my favorite LS post ever! Thank you Grogster! Looks like I'm finally ready for Nietzsche.

 

Social perspectivism. Love it!

 

 

You're most welcome, Kamille.

 

I also greatly enjoy your contributions to this forum.

[Hot Carl]

The thing that irritates me most about Rand is her first name. I doubt anyone really knows how it's supposed to be pronounced. Including me.

 

After that comes her philosophy.

[Kamille]

 

I also greatly enjoy your contributions to this forum.

 

Even when I mix up GPA and GDP? (laughing at myself)

[threebyfate]

So do you feel that while access to education is equal, certain segment of the population actively choose to do drugs or to fail at school? In other words, do you hold the student, the parent or the school responsible.

I hold the student responsible. The choice to get involved with drugs, is a personal choice. It's not often that people are held down and forced to partake. Same thing goes with failing school. No one forced anyone, not to pay attention or not to learn. The tools are there.

 

I agree that nurture plays a huge role in these matter. Right now, the sociology of education is flipping the script on the narrative: saying that the problem of structured inequalities doesn't stem from the individual kids themselves but from the school system: most curriculum, for example, is euro-centric. Studies have shown that black kids in the States get punished more easily for the same behaviour that white kids do and end up having files (example: for eating candy).

 

I guess I feel it's an issue that goes beyond informed individual choices.

Let me ask you this question. Why do some black children do well and others don't? Apply this to white children too.

[threebyfate]

Objectivism, at least as practiced by Rand, had a cult-like quality. I get nervous when any philosophy or religion claims that there is one, and only one, Truth and that only true believers may apprehend this one Truth.

 

Ironically, although Rand was very anti-religion, her Objectivism functions as one when it comes to divining the so-called true existence and reason. In my view, a social perspectivism reigns: Nietzsche trumps Rand.

 

I'm also concerned about the network effects involved in living in a society of Randian egoists. Rand appeals to young, intellectual elitists who've not been tested by life. These folks celebrate their claimed superior qualities through their Objectivist beliefs.

 

Objectivism is a justificatory Narcissism for the young, the self-involved and the untested. It's not a philosophy; it's an ideology of the Self. Think Max Stirner.

 

If you doubt me, simply visit an Objectivist dating site.

There are aspects of almost every view of life that's worth embracing. Best that individuals pick and choose the aspects that work for them, as long as they're willing to seriously measure the theories, against who and what they are and also, what they stand for.

 

It's like economics and politics. There's a time and a place for each theory. Cherry pick at your own risk.

 

I do agree that there are cultish elements about Rand and Objectivism. That's why I've stated that people need to hold on tight to their humanity and also, that it's a siren call to the narcissist in everyone. And for certain, there's a narcissist within all of us. Most of us hold it at bay, to differing degrees, through application of empathy and compassion.

[Kamille]

I hold the student responsible. The choice to get involved with drugs, is a personal choice. It's not often that people are held down and forced to partake. Same thing goes with failing school. No one forced anyone, not to pay attention or not to learn. The tools are there.

 

Let me ask you this question. Why do some black children do well and others don't? Apply this to white children too.

 

I would argue that a lot of it has to do with the trajectories of these kids as much as any forms of any abilities. Also, how they are encouraged in school, wether their parents know how to communicate with the school. Whether kids and parents share the knowledge of the school and how school functions.

 

Statistics do not a kid make, but statistical trends do show that the responsibility goes beyond kid's personal choices.

[threebyfate]

I would argue that a lot of it has to do with the trajectories of these kids as much as any forms of any abilities. Also, how they are encouraged in school, wether their parents know how to communicate with the school. Whether kids and parents share the knowledge of the school and how school functions.

 

Statistics do not a kid make, but statistical trends do show that the responsibility goes beyond kid's personal choices.

So you feel that the individual child has no responsibility in this? Kids are smarter and have far more savvy, than adults give them credit for.

[Kamille]

So you feel that the individual child has no responsibility in this? Kids are smarter and have far more savvy, than adults give them credit for.

 

I'm not saying kids aren't smart. I just wonder why some socially significant groups of kids fare better then others at school. I want to recognize social inequalities and not place the entire responsibility for selves on individuals (of all ages).

 

I also don't think that being smart is the same thing as being successful in school or as simple as 'making the right choices' (for what and according to whom?).

[threebyfate]

I'm not saying kids aren't smart. I just wonder why some groups of kids fare better then others at school. I also don't think that being smart is the same thing as being successful in school or as simple as 'making the right choices' (for what and according to whom?).

If you debate the term of "right choices", then you agree that people are where they're at, by their own reconizance.

[Kamille]

If you debate the term of "right choices", then you agree that people are where they're at, by their own reconizance.

 

I am questioning the notion of 'right choices', hence the scare quote and subsequent questions.

 

Put another way: what, according to you, makes an action a choice, and in return, a choice 'the right choice'? Are every actions choices? What is the extent of control that we have over our lives?