p3t3.net

The Trouble with Capital-O Objectivism

 Since becoming familiar with Ayn Rand's ideas, I've considered myself an objectivist (I use here a lowercase "o" for reasons which will become apparent).  Having been raised amid the stunting irrationality of Christianity, her ideas gave me the solid footing I had been seeking for my own intellectual growth.

 It's not surprising that I developed strong ideas, largely based on hers, and became outspoken about them - these are traits often seen in students of Rand's work - and it's not surprising that I've found myself associated with Rand and objectivism among my circle of friends and acquaintances, and that people address questions on the topic to me.  This is where the problem begins.

 Objectivism (with a capital O) has, sadly, been the province of small-minded factions, warring over points of dogma, for almost all its history.  Objectivists seem to devote most of their efforts to passing judgement on each other; when they disagree - which is often the case - they "excommunicate" one another from their various organizations.  Even Rand herself, brilliant though she was, was not above this sort of infantile behavior on occasion.

 The trouble with this is that people who may be interested in learning about Rand's ideas see this sort of nonsense and are turned off by it or, worse, think it representative of Rand.  I frequently find myself in the position of trying to persuade an honest seeker of knowledge that there is real gold to be found beneath the mud-slinging, but having to discern the signal from the noise can be daunting, even for the initiated.

 What the people who make up these Objectivist factions seem to miss is that the very idea of groups of objectivists is inherently absurd; Rand's philosophy extols independence and individualism.  As Kirsti Minsaas says in her excellent piece on one Objectivist "schism":

 "[T]he passionate dedication to values we find in the Randian hero is expressed through his single-minded pursuit of a productive or creative goal, not through constant preoccupation with moral judgment; his overriding concern is with his work, his own self-fulfillment, not to fight a moral crusade to change other people or the world.  To the extent [that] he spends time and effort judging, fighting or persuading people, it's of secondary importance, a part of his struggle to attain his creative goals.

 "I have often wondered why it's so rare to find such dedication among Objectivists, why, indeed, Objectivism seems to inspire so little true independence and creativity, which to my mind is what Objectivism is all about.  One reason, no doubt, is the stifling effect of rationalism and dogmatism on all creative impulse.  However loyal to Ayn Rand's ideas the dogmatic Objectivist might be, he will, in a deeper sense, betray the spirit of her philosophy by closing his mind shut to any first-hand knowledge of reality; he will become a second-hander, living through and for Objectivism, making it an end rather than a guide and inspiration to become a thinker, producer, creator in his own right."

 Would Rand's Kira Argounova spend her days writing diatribes splitting hairs over the interpretation of philosophical points?  Would Howard Roark be a member of an Objectivist club?  Would John Galt need some intermediate interpreter of Ayn Rand's work in order to understand it?  Of course not; they're busy solving problems, designing buildings, building motors, living their lives...  and they think for themselves (as Rand urged everyone to do), without the need of external validation.

 I submit that the real objectivists of the world are unknown to the "Objectivist movement": while the pinheads argue points of order, the real objectivists are out there quietly turning the world.

[Copyright] [Home]