Objectivism

[threebyfate]

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?

Let's use post-secondary education as the example. People choose their majors, whether they choose to bow before external parental pressure or personal preference.

 

Each action is a choice. For example, I choose to drink water, rather than knock back a Jager Bomb or I chose not to go to the bathroom previous to skydiving and ended up peeing my pants.

 

We have a great amount of control over our lives. With each choice, our future choices are either limited or expanded.

[LucreziaBorgia]

Interestingly enough, Anton LaVey used quite a bit of Rand's work for the basis of The Satanic Bible. They are very similar in many ways, as a result (and to be fair, different in a few ways as well). There is a wide gap between how people think they are, and strive to be - and how they are at the core of their 'human nature' - both of these philosophies touch on that 'human nature' that a good deal of people would rather deny than acknowledge.

[Kamille]

Let's use post-secondary education as the example. People choose their majors, whether they choose to bow before external parental pressure or personal preference.

 

I'm not sure I follow the links between being able to pick a major and questions of equality. To me, going to university is a privilege in and of itself and gives anyone a leg up, no matter the major, on the job market (University grads do get paid more on average on the job market). That's why I'm more interested in what happens before students get to university.

 

Each action is a choice. For example, I choose to drink water, rather than knock back a Jager Bomb or I chose not to go to the bathroom previous to skydiving and ended up peeing my pants.

 

what about the actions of others or the unintended consequences of our actions? Say I'm looking to rent an apartment: as a young professional white woman (studies show) that I am the favored tenant in my city: as such, my choice to take xyz apartment has an impact on the choices of others because I will most likely get whatever apartment I chose. This leaves others struggling to find other apartments, with some people, namely single mothers (the same studies show that they're the ones who struggle the most in my city's market). This in turn affects which schools this mother's kids will go to. How then, does the kid of that mother have control over his elementary education?

 

 

We have a great amount of control over our lives. With each choice, our future choices are either limited or expanded.

 

I agree that our choices limit or expand our future possibilities, yet we don't master the ways in which they will. Are drivers fully aware that they have an increased risk of cancer for sitting idle in a traffic jam? Not to mention, do they fully control the ecological damage the planet incurs from CO2 emissions? And sometimes, such as the kid in the apartment scenario, the choices are limited by the choices of others, from school boards to my rental of an apartment.

 

To me, the choices isn't between agency (having choices) or no agency, but a third option: realizing that we do have choices, but that the playing field isn't even.

[threebyfate]

I'm not sure I follow the links between being able to pick a major and questions of equality. To me, going to university is a privilege in and of itself and gives anyone a leg up, no matter the major, on the job market (University grads do get paid more on average on the job market). That's why I'm more interested in what happens before students get to university.

I answered your questions directly. If this wasn't what you were getting at, you're going to have to be more clear. And I don't mean that in a condescending way.

 

If we're going to rewind the discussion to our earlier posts, most individuals come from middle class families. Most have access to some form of funding, whether by student loan, families, scholarships, etc.

 

what about the actions of others or the unintended consequences of our actions? Say I'm looking to rent an apartment: as a young professional white woman (studies show) that I am the favored tenant in my city: as such, my choice to take xyz apartment has an impact on the choices of others because I will most likely get whatever apartment I chose. This leaves others struggling to find other apartments, with some people, namely single mothers (the same studies show that they're the ones who struggle the most in my city's market). This in turn affects which schools this mother's kids will go to. How then, does the kid of that mother have control over his elementary education?

Before we get into this further, what's your definition of single mother? And with this definition, what are the exact statistics for this demographic.

I agree that our choices limit or expand our future possibilities, yet we don't master the ways in which they will. Are drivers fully aware that they have an increased risk of cancer for sitting idle in a traffic jam? Not to mention, do they fully control the ecological damage the planet incurs from CO2 emissions? And sometimes, such as the kid in the apartment scenario, the choices are limited by the choices of others, from school boards to my rental of an apartment.

 

To me, the choices isn't between agency (having choices) or no agency, but a third option: realizing that we do have choices, but that the playing field isn't even.

I agree that there are scenarios that can't be helped, like natural disasters. Looking at your concluding sentence, our view differs. My view is that we realize we do have choices and to make the most of those choices by looking to the long-term in our decision-making process, rather than always taking the easiest path, through short-term feel-good thinking. Each time life throws a curve ball at you, you time the swing to connect with the sweet spot. In essence, you don't bemoan the status of things out of your control, causing stagnation through inaction, instead you make the most of what's within your control.

 

For example with women. There is a glass ceiling. Instead of allowing the bemoaning of the glass ceiling to stop us from trying to break it, we just break it. BTDT and did it on my own.

[Ariadne]

Philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand...reality exists independent of consciousness; that individual persons are in direct contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic

 

The blind leading the blind, that´s what I think of this article.

[Kamille]

Foreword: don't worry about offending me TBF, we've been on these boards long enough to know we share a mutual respect for each other (at least I believe so!).

 

Plus I think the reason we're engaging in this debate is as an exchange of ideas. Our opinions differ and we're trying to think through what objectivism and Rand's philosophy means, what are its advantages and its limits.

 

My dad had a period when he was a huge fan of Ayn Rand, so I was raised to be, like you, accountable for my choices. Interestingly, he became a fan of Ayn Rand when he was put in charge of restructuring a province's Ministry of justice - read, when he was put in charge of laying off people and setting the standard for which people should be considered productive and which people obsolete. I think he therefore needed an ideology which would allow him to make those decisions. He's since rescinded Rand. (He was a and remains a huge fan of humanist existentialism, especially Sartre).

 

And yet, even though I was raised to be accountable for my own actions and refuse the position of victim, I don't think we live in a world of equal opportunity for all. My belief seems to be validated by the fact that there remains systemic inequalities and I for one refuse to believe that these systemic inequalities, which hold the violence of slavery and colonialism as a a heritage, are the result of laziness or victimization. Else, we hold individuals accountable to undo systemic inequalities, instead of holding the system accountable for producing them.

 

I understand that TBF hates vicitimization of any kind, as do I. I don't think, however, that showing inequalities when they exist is the same thing as whining and bemoaning the status of things. We need a deliberative space where we can discuss inequalities as they exist, one that holds both individuals and society accountable.

 

 

 

I answered your questions directly. If this wasn't what you were getting at, you're going to have to be more clear. And I don't mean that in a condescending way.

 

I believe the confusion stems from the fact that I was referring to elementary and secondary school students and not university students. I never raised the question of University students. (look at posts 7-10)

 

If we're going to rewind the discussion to our earlier posts, most individuals come from middle class families. Most have access to some form of funding, whether by student loan, families, scholarships, etc.

 

Is it objective to focus only on the average? Isn't it more objective (less biased) to focus on the whole population? I'm middle class, so it would be easy for me to reify my beliefs of the world by generalizing my experiences, beliefs and practices to the whole population. I therefore end up being unable to understand why other people aren't so clear-headed as me. But that's not objective: it's completely subjective. And, what's middle class and what's the percentage of the population that qualifies as middle class? Poverty and income gaps are rising in Canada (and the States). I will try and find those studies... But I do have my own work to do! But likewise, if you could find studies that support the view that most people are middle class, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

Before we get into this further, what's your definition of single mother? And with this definition, what are the exact statistics for this demographic.

 

The study I was thinking of was reported by my local newspaper last year. I no longer have access to their archive. (I would name the paper, but it would make me incredibly identifiable to my own IRL community). I will look for it and send you the link in PM.

 

A single parent is a person who has the responsibility for the upbringing of one or more underage child. They may or may not have access to child support and they may or may not live in poverty. I am not saying that every single parent is at a disadvantaged. What I am saying is that, on average, single parents have a harder time finding apartments then I would. Also, on average, Stats-can show that there is a gap between the income (includes child support) of single parent households and double-parent household (Anne Arnett Ferguson had numbers for the US in her study of racism in american education, 2001 - I think; for Canada, see StatsCan).

 

I agree that there are scenarios that can't be helped, like natural disasters. Looking at your concluding sentence, our view differs. My view is that we realize we do have choices and to make the most of those choices by looking to the long-term in our decision-making process, rather than always taking the easiest path, through short-term feel-good thinking. Each time life throws a curve ball at you, you time the swing to connect with the sweet spot. In essence, you don't bemoan the status of things out of your control, causing stagnation through inaction, instead you make the most of what's within your control.

 

For example with women. There is a glass ceiling. Instead of allowing the bemoaning of the glass ceiling to stop us from trying to break it, we just break it. BTDT and did it on my own.

 

It is easy for me to claim that I have made it this far in academia on my own merit. What is tougher is for me to see that there were structures along the way that helped me be a 'deserving academic'. Why do I get scholarships? Surely it must be because I am brilliant! oh no wait... Might it have something to do with the fact that my dad read Sartre and Rand and would discuss his readings with me? And why was my dad reading existentialist philosophy? Ah yes, because my grand-father applied to go join the army because there were no other jobs available in his area (as he was the last of his family and therefore did not inherit the fishing boat or any land). A Second-World-War veteran, my grandfather came back from the war haunted by it and became obsessed with watching the news and understanding social conflict. Notice, here, that my grandfather did not really choose to be soldier.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Kamille

[threebyfate]

Foreword: don't worry about offending me TBF, we've been on these boards long enough to know we share a mutual respect for each other (at least I believe so!).

Glad to hear that Kamille. And yes, we do share a mutual respect for each other. Differing opinions are fine. As long as it's a discussion without needing to degenerate into insults, it's all good, interesting and stimulating.

 

I've enjoyed our discussion within this thread.

 

Plus I think the reason we're engaging in this debate is as an exchange of ideas. Our opinions differ and we're trying to think through what objectivism and Rand's philosophy means, what are its advantages and its limits.

Agreed again. Once again, most philosophies or in this scenario, view of life, have positives that we can cherry pick from them, without needing to fully embrace the inhumanity or negatives.

My dad had a period when he was a huge fan of Ayn Rand, so I was raised to be, like you, accountable for my choices. Interestingly, he became a fan of Ayn Rand when he was put in charge of restructuring a province's Ministry of justice - read, when he was put in charge of laying off people and setting the standard for which people should be considered productive and which people obsolete. I think he therefore needed an ideology which would allow him to make those decisions. He's since rescinded Rand. (He was a and remains a huge fan of humanist existentialism, especially Sartre).

Smart man. Rand's philosophy is based on logic and in many ways, perfect for restructuring and being an axe man, since you step back from the human condition.

 

And yet, even though I was raised to be accountable for my own actions and refuse the position of victim, I don't think we live in a world of equal opportunity for all. My belief seems to be validated by the fact that there remains systemic inequalities and I for one refuse to believe that these systemic inequalities, which hold the violence of slavery and colonialism as a a heritage, are the result of laziness or victimization. Else, we hold individuals accountable to undo systemic inequalities, instead of holding the system accountable for producing them.

If there are systemic inequalities, you can also apply logic to them and also, take action. Talk is cheap, especially if it paralyzes you into inaction.

I understand that TBF hates vicitimization of any kind, as do I. I don't think, however, that showing inequalities when they exist is the same thing as whining and bemoaning the status of things. We need a deliberative space where we can discuss inequalities as they exist, one that holds both individuals and society accountable.

Overall, it's what you do with information that falls out of discussion. If you do nothing, that's a choice. If you want to make a difference, you make the long-term choice of a career that can impact on what's perceived as an inequality. For example, you choose politics or law, to forward your agenda.

 

I believe the confusion stems from the fact that I was referring to elementary and secondary school students and not university students. I never raised the question of University students. (look at posts 7-10)

While elementary school students don't have much choice on their curriculum, secondary school students have A LOT of choice.

 

Is it objective to focus only on the average? Isn't it more objective (less biased) to focus on the whole population? I'm middle class, so it would be easy for me to reify my beliefs of the world by generalizing my experiences, beliefs and practices to the whole population. I therefore end up being unable to understand why other people aren't so clear-headed as me. But that's not objective: it's completely subjective. And, what's middle class and what's the percentage of the population that qualifies as middle class? Poverty and income gaps are rising in Canada (and the States). I will try and find those studies... But I do have my own work to do! But likewise, if you could find studies that support the view that most people are middle class, it would be greatly appreciated.

To be objective, lets focus on poverty, which is the class that would be impacted by the inequality that's being referenced, the single mother scenario. In the United States, the poverty statistic fluctuates from 13 - 17%. Of that statistic, there are approximately 33%, which are single parent homes, which equates to 4.3 - 5.6% of the population. This means that 95.4% don't fall into the criteria used. To me, that's a very small percentage to be concerned about. While starvation isn't an option, to expect complete equality for everyone, is asking too much of any generic system. As well, to what degree are the individuals responsible for their situation. There's also freedom of choice when it comes to abortion or not, adopting out or not.

 

The study I was thinking of was reported by my local newspaper last year. I no longer have access to their archive. (I would name the paper, but it would make me incredibly identifiable to my own IRL community). I will look for it and send you the link in PM.

Sounds good. Yes plse, send me the study.

A single parent is a person who has the responsibility for the upbringing of one or more underage child. They may or may not have access to child support and they may or may not live in poverty. I am not saying that every single parent is at a disadvantaged. What I am saying is that, on average, single parents have a harder time finding apartments then I would. Also, on average, Stats-can show that there is a gap between the income (includes child support) of single parent households and double-parent household (Anne Arnett Ferguson had numbers for the US in her study of racism in american education, 2001 - I think; for Canada, see StatsCan).

Refer to the above statistics provided, for single family homes who are disadvantaged.

 

It is easy for me to claim that I have made it this far in academia on my own merit. What is tougher is for me to see that there were structures along the way that helped me be a 'deserving academic'. Why do I get scholarships? Surely it must be because I am brilliant! oh no wait... Might it have something to do with the fact that my dad read Sartre and Rand and would discuss his readings with me? And why was my dad reading existentialist philosophy?

There's nothing wrong with appreciating what you were provided with. Is it all possible that you are intelligent? But no doubt nurture does have strong impact into how a person is shaped. And yet, do we all not have the ability to change ourselves, once we become adults? Also, to bring into the discussion, mass media impact. We bemoan the state of mass media, at least all the drivel impacting on teenagers, etc. What we fail to bring into the discussion, are all the good messages also being sent out through mass media, like human interest stories, the stay in school and benefits of an education messages. The choice is there, for individuals to choose, which messages they're going to listen to.

 

Ah yes, because my grand-father applied to go join the army because there were no other jobs available in his area (as he was the last of his family and therefore did not inherit the fishing boat or any land). A Second-World-War veteran, my grandfather came back from the war haunted by it and became obsessed with watching the news and understanding social conflict. Notice, here, that my grandfather did not really choose to be soldier.

What prevented your grandfather from relocating to a more lucrative job market? Even during the depression era, thousands upon thousands of men, hopped the train to find jobs. Edited February 1, 2010 by threebyfate

[Kamille]

What prevented your grandfather from relocating to a more lucrative job market? Even during the depression era, thousands upon thousands of men, hopped the train to find jobs.

 

I will answer the whole post when I get the chance, but quickly: because he didn't even have the means to relocate for anything but big industry (which offered room and board at temporary camps). Plus, even in this, his 'choice' was incredibly constrained: he could have chosen to be a miner in Northern Canada (at a time when working conditions were extremely harsh and horrible and underpaid - Francophones competed with prisoners for mining jobs...) or a soldier. He 'chose' to be a soldier.

 

Discrimination against francophones in the Atlantic provinces (at the time) prevented him from accessing any 'white collar' positions even though he had completed secondary school, knew how to read and write and spoke French and English with proficiency.

 

interestingly, public policy, the increased value of industry and the emergence of the service economy (reliant on multilingualism) has since undone much of those inequalities for (bilingual) Francophones. Minority francophones in Canada have, since the 1980s, gone from being one of the under-acheiving groups (in provincial standardized tests) to being one of the outperfoming groups. To me, this, again, testified that there is more to success than individual choices.

[sally4sara]

I have always been amazed at the effect of Rand on her readers. I find her philosophies interesting, but not lasting. She was ahead of her time in her day for how she admired the autonomy of men and sought to emulate it. It stands to reason in her era. It also tickles me how many times she gets discussed at social gatherings and I find yet another guy who thinks Rand is male. I think it is because she emulated the old boys club style. Just last week, I yet again had to let a "big fan of Rand" know HE was a SHE.

 

Today however, the atmosphere of inequality has largely disappated. The autonomy she admired is mostly afforded to all. Because of this she now, to me anyway, just seems coldhearted. Her views perpetuate the instances where certain people fall through the cracks. The Haves still have that advantage over the Have Nots. I feel some comfort themselves in this by striving to agree with her that anyone who finds themselves disadvantaged only brought it on themselves. But I've seen that big old crack up close and personal; I know this is not always the case.

[Trialbyfire]

Kamille, looking forward to your input, on the balance of my post.

 

Thanks for your input, everyone. It's interesting to read everyone's opinions on Objectivism or Rand in general.

[torranceshipman]

I have always believed in the power of perception and, therefore, multiple realities. So I couldn't say that I am a proponent of objectivism. I don't believe that all people do things for personal gain: I believe that we are all different and have different motivations and value systems. Interesting theory though, alongside the many other interesting meta-theories that exist out there.

[Taramere]

The Haves still have that advantage over the Have Nots. I feel some comfort themselves in this by striving to agree with her that anyone who finds themselves disadvantaged only brought it on themselves. But I've seen that big old crack up close and personal; I know this is not always the case.

 

Some of Ayn Rand's more sympathetically portrayed characters were impoverished as a result of having played against rather than with the system. Henry Cameron was one. That sculptor (Mallory?) being another. Which happens to people in real life as well. Not all the Haves in her books are admirable or honest characters. What I took from her writing had little to do with money, more to do with having self respect and pursuing what you are passionate about, despite external circumstances that are beyond your control.

 

Despite the controversy of her writing, I still think there are some appealing messages in it. Howard Roark achieves happiness as well as a sense of integrity not by playing with an often corrupt system nor fighting against it - but by simply being indifferent to it, and doing his own thing. Until he bombs Cortlandt Homes, that is.

 

He's as self respecting without money and validation from others as he is with it. That's why although I agree with TBF that in some ways her philosophy is a siren call to narcissism, there's the very important element of Rand's lead characters not being remotely preoccupied with what the majority of people think of them. Narcissists are consumed with caring about what people think of them.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Taramere

[burning 4 revenge]

I don't know much about this woman (apparently she was a really talented novelist) but a brief look over Wiki revealed she didnt have a formal education in economics.

 

I'm not sure how she was in a position to be so hypocritical of Keyensian theory and so sure that her economic philosophy woulnt result in economic and then social disaster

[torranceshipman]

I don't know much about this woman (apparently she was a really talented novelist) but a brief look over Wiki revealed she didnt have a formal education in economics.

 

I'm not sure how she was in a position to be so hypocritical of Keyensian theory and so sure that her economic philosophy woulnt result in economic and then social disaster

 

You are right on that economic observation.

[burning 4 revenge]

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.

Hmn..what happpened in that scene, now Im curious..

[Trialbyfire]

I don't know much about this woman (apparently she was a really talented novelist) but a brief look over Wiki revealed she didnt have a formal education in economics.

 

I'm not sure how she was in a position to be so hypocritical of Keyensian theory and so sure that her economic philosophy woulnt result in economic and then social disaster

You've got my interest now. Can you expand on how you came to this conclusion?

[burning 4 revenge]

You've got my interest now. Can you expand on how you came to this conclusion?

That she didnt have a formal education in Economics?

 

I looked for it in her Wiki entry

 

Maybe I missed something, as I said I don't know much about her except through you and Taramere and I've heard the name here and there. I do know she's associated with Libertarianism a philosphy that is advocated by Ron Paul, Tea Party lunatics, The CATO Insititute and racist right wing militias who live in Montana

[Trialbyfire]

Some of Ayn Rand's more sympathetically portrayed characters were impoverished as a result of having played against rather than with the system. Henry Cameron was one. That sculptor (Mallory?) being another. Which happens to people in real life as well. Not all the Haves in her books are admirable or honest characters. What I took from her writing had little to do with money, more to do with having self respect and pursuing what you are passionate about, despite external circumstances that are beyond your control.

 

Despite the controversy of her writing, I still think there are some appealing messages in it. Howard Roark achieves happiness as well as a sense of integrity not by playing with an often corrupt system nor fighting against it - but by simply being indifferent to it, and doing his own thing. Until he bombs Cortlandt Homes, that is.

 

He's as self respecting without money and validation from others as he is with it. That's why although I agree with TBF that in some ways her philosophy is a siren call to narcissism, there's the very important element of Rand's lead characters not being remotely preoccupied with what the majority of people think of them. Narcissists are consumed with caring about what people think of them.

Bolded for truth, as someone who was once married to one!

[torranceshipman]

I'm presuming it was a reference to her ideas on laissez-faire capitalism, which seem very simplistic and extremely problematic on an economic and social level, and also suggests a very narrow worldview on her part (but not trying to speak for burning4r)...

[Trialbyfire]

That she didnt have a formal education in Economics?

 

I looked for it in her Wiki entry

 

Maybe I missed something, as I said I don't know much about her except through you and Taramere and I've heard the name here and there. I do know she's associated with Libertarianism a philosphy that is advocated by Ron Paul, Tea Party lunatics, The CATO Insititute and racist right wing militias who live in Montana

No, plse expand on this, beyond stating who she is/was associated to:

 

I'm not sure how she was in a position to be so hypocritical of Keyensian theory and so sure that her economic philosophy woulnt result in economic and then social disaster

[Taramere]

That she didnt have a formal education in Economics?

 

I looked for it in her Wiki entry

 

Maybe I missed something, as I said I don't know much about her except through you and Taramere and I've heard the name here and there. I do know she's associated with Libertarianism a philosphy that is advocated by Ron Paul, Tea Party lunatics, The CATO Insititute and racist right wing militias who live in Montana

 

My impression has always been that it began as a personal philosophy...a response, perhaps, to her experiences as a young girl in Stalinist Russia. She amassed various intellectual admirers who were intrigued by her philosophies, I think. Among these, people like Alan Greenspan who took her objectivism and expanded upon it with reference to economic policy.

[burning 4 revenge]

No, plse expand on this, beyond stating who she is/was associated to:

All I can find at my fingertips at the moment is that she was critical of Roosevelt and government intervention( his New Deal was largely guided by Keyensian principles) in the economy and championed a laissez faire economy

 

It also seems she rejected Austrian Libertarian economics, so Im not even sure what her POV was as Libertarianism is pure laissez faire

[burning 4 revenge]

No, plse expand on this, beyond stating who she is/was associated to:

btw I meant hypercritical not hypocritical

[Trialbyfire]

You realize that free market principles don't preclude regulation against fraud or force, right?

[burning 4 revenge]

My impression has always been that it began as a personal philosophy...a response, perhaps, to her experiences as a young girl in Stalinist Russia. She amassed various intellectual admirers who were intrigued by her philosophies, I think. Among these, people like Alan Greenspan who took her objectivism and expanded upon it with reference to economic policy.

Alan Greenspan's hands off approach ended up with the largest investment banks crashing and begging for government intervention after they turned the mortgage market into a sophisticated casino comprised of high risk futures

 

Her experiences in Stalinist Russia probably clouded her "objectivity". Thats like my Cuban relatives who hated Democrats because of Communism, so they associated any government intervention with Communism without any understanding of the complicated minutae of economic dynamics and business ecology