Have so called "Objectivists" perverted Ayn Rand's teachings?
Posted by ScintiaSitPotentia 7 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
I know many Objectivists or self proclaimed individuals who suggest they truly study and understand her teachings, However their lack of reverence towards their fellow man is concerning. Rand even said. "Kill reverence and you've killed the hero in man" We should hold respect for others and we should strive for our happiness. What is your view if any or I am being to idealistic?
She wrote in her in journals while writing Atlas Shrugged:
"[I]t is proper for a creator to be optimistic, in the deepest, most basic sense, since the creator [her heroes] believes in a benevolent universe and functions on that premise. But it is an error to extend that optimism to other specific men. First, it's not necessary, the creator's life and the nature of the universe do not require it, his life does not depend on others. Second, man is a being with free will; therefore, each man is potentially good or evil, and it's up to him to decide by his own reasoning mind which he wants to be; the decision will affect only him; it is not (and should not be) the primary concern of any other human being. Therefore, while a creator does and must worship Man (which is reverence for his own highest potentiality), he must not make the mistake of thinking that this means the necessity to worship Mankind (as a collective); these are two entirely different conceptions with diametrically opposed consequences. Man, at his highest potentiality, is realized and fulfilled with each creator himself, and within such other men as he finds around him who live up to that idea. This is all that's necessary.
Whether the creator is alone, or finds only a handful of others like him, or is among the majority of mankind, is of no importance or consequence whatever; numbers have nothing to do with it; he alone or he and a few others like him are mankind, in the proper sense of being the proof of what man actually is, man at his best, the essential man, man at his highest possibility. (The rational being who acts according to his nature.)
It should not matter to a creator whether anyone or a million or all the men around him fall short of the ideal of Man; let him live up to that ideal himself; this is all the "optimism" about Man that he needs. But this is a hard and subtle thing to realize—and it would be natural for Dagny always to make the mistake of believing others are better than they really are (or will become better, or she will teach them to become better) and to be tied to the world by that hope.
Any man who works for his wage, strives for his happiness and with logic has my respect. these are the qualities that are desired in man.
I like to think that by virtue of being human, we innately deserve the respect for life and right to choice that comes with being a human, viz. that coercion constitutes a lack of respect for the other. However, if we make choices that coerce others, we can in turn lose that respect.
Reverence to me implies worship or emulation. IMHO, we would do very well for this to be a very short list.
And I do not claim that respect is the same as approval. I can choose to respect someone for who they could be regardless of what they have done that I disapprove of.
The real question is what do we do after that identification is made. Do we pretend within ourselves that this other person has not really demonstrated that they are a person at all - placing ourselves as arbiters of human value? That is contempt. The evaluation that a human being has no "demonstrated" value is completely a subjective judgment arbitrarily assuming the judge as some kind of supreme authority. The only problem is that if worth is only in the eye of the beholder, from whence does a person derive their own worth? They can not. The whole system becomes a cyclical morass of subjective judgement with no true value to be had!
The only solution lies in admitting that human beings have innate value: value that we as other human beings can choose to acknowledge or respect - or that we can attempt to rationalize as not existing until we approve it. Rationalization, however, is nothing more than an internal power play - an attempt to tell ourselves that we can control what in reality is completely beyond our control. If we acknowledge that coercion of another person is verboten, are we not acknowledging that (regardless of what we think or rationalize) the innate and inherent quality of being human by its very nature places at least one value judgement completely outside of our authority to debate? I contend it does.
When one observes another human being, at first, all one recognizes is a rational animal with a free will. Immediately one then starts evaluating. How old, how healthy, how strong, if of opposite sex, perhaps the sex appeal. Then, with closer look and the first interactions, comes evaluating intelligence, knowledge and character. Ever heard about "importance of first impressions"? Then and only then can come beginnings of respect or contempt. Based on first hand evidence.
"The evaluation that a human being has no "demonstrated" value is completely a subjective judgment arbitrarily assuming the judge as some kind of supreme authority."
Why do you think people write resumes and seek recommendations from others who know them before going to an interview for a job opening? Positive evaluations and respect have to be EARNED.
"The only problem is that if worth is only in the eye of the beholder, from whence does a person derive their own worth?"
The self worth comes from achievement in creating objective values and from positive evaluations from people whom one respects highly.
I could go on. Suffice it say, I think you have to think through more thoroughly these concepts and their relationships before you can express them in writing.
In other words, a human being. THAT is the very first value judgement. It can not be simply skipped over or ignored. The question is whether the intrinsic value of a human lies in their age, health, strength, sex appeal, etc. or in the fact that they are human in the first place.
"Then, with closer look and the first interactions, comes evaluating intelligence, knowledge and character. ..."
I am not arguing that people are equal in capability. That is not the case at all. Neither am I evaluating the potential suitability of another person for a specific task - whether that be employment or spouse. Those are absolutely going to be subjective evaluations based on the strengths and weaknesses of that person in relation to the values an individual has set as "desirable". What I am arguing is that those are secondary judgments: judgments of fitness within an application rather than an original identification of personhood with its inherent worth.
Yes, one's respect for another can grow as a result of familiarity, etc. I am not arguing against that at all. What I am questioning is the assertion that in assaying another human being one can start out with a "neutral" respect. That is asserting that a person is no different than a rock, a tree, or any other object lacking self-will/self-determination. What more, it asserts that this other person has no relationship or similarity to one's self.
["The only problem is that if worth is only in the eye of the beholder, from whence does a person derive their own worth?" (mine)]
"The self worth comes from achievement in creating objective values and from positive evaluations from people whom one respects highly." (your response)
I don't know if you realize it, but both your examples are of subjective rather than intrinsic worth and both examples rely entirely upon subjective human valuation of fitness. Your examples prove my point.
Here's a hypothetical for consideration in light of this question:
You are walking along the road one day and come across a figure on the side of the road. Upon closer inspection, you realize that it is a person, but that this individual is non-responsive and appears to have suffered serious injury. From the chill in the air, you can see a faint mist indicating that they are breathing. You have an appointment that you will be late to if you stop.
What do you do and why?
I call 911 and then the "appointment", to say I will be late. Then wait until emergency crew arrives. I have zero resuscitation skills and no protection against infection.
I still have to urge you to think more carefully and deeply.
Urge away. The entire point of this forum is to encourage thinking - but I would caution confusing agreement with "thinking". So far, your argument seems to center on a personal decision not to accept any intrinsic value in other human beings. I simply disagree with that posture and from that stems our disagreement. I have cited my reasons and the outcomes I believe stem from such a view. Those outcomes have not been disputed and until they do they carry considerable weight in my decision-making process.
Regarding the scenario, however, why do you choose to expend time and energy and face the repercussions of your missed appointment when you have no information other than the fact that it is another person? There has been no demonstration of extrinsic value by the other person.
Just say what you really meant: that because I express an opinion you disagree with, you think I shouldn't voice it. Then when I present a hypothetical that directly addresses the question at hand but poses a difficult moral question, I get down-voted without even a reply. -1 to you, too.
Doubt is only present where evidence has not been produced to lead to judgement. If the true standard of worth is only based on demonstrated value, why would our behavior not default towards skepticism rather than respect?
"We treat them with benevolence and respectfully based on their potential as human beings."
Potential is not the same as evidence. If we treat someone based on their potential, aren't we exercising... faith?
Likewise there must be evidence before denouncing him with contempt. There is no reason to "default" to either. It is a false alternative.
There is reason to treat people you don't know civilly to foster a benevolent society, realizing that they have the potential for goodness or greatness and encouraging it.
Granting an unearned respect, without knowing what a person is, is an act of faith, illustrated by the injustice and rote religious collectivism demanding to love everyone as a duty, prohibiting independent thought and judgment.
"Judge and be prepared to be judged."
Human beings are beyond the average. They are the only creatures on this planet with independent will. They are the only creatures who have innate rights and those rights do not come by virtue of anything they have done, but simply by being a human. We are exceptional. One does not merit rights through action, but simply by existing. Character, etc., can certainly enhance or detract from one's appeal to others, I agree. But I still maintain that because one is identifying another person as human there is no such thing as a neutral attitude because one has already associated many value judgments about humanity with one's self. The only way one can say that they view others with no outlook whatsoever is to deny their own observation that the other is a person like themselves. I do not believe there exists a third "neutral" option.
"There is reason to treat people you don't know civilly to foster a benevolent society, realizing that they have the potential for goodness or greatness and encouraging it."
I completely agree, I'm just really surprised to hear it from you because this is strictly a position of faith - not evidence.
"Granting an unearned respect, without knowing what a person is, is an act of faith..."
Making any kind of judgement about another person without knowing them is an act of faith (or prejudice), I completely agree, but you would not say the same thing about a dog or a rock or a tree. Why? Because they don't have the potential to do great things - or terrible things. Only human beings have self-determination. Are there religions and philosophies who preach that others who are not part of their respective groups are not "human" and therefore do not deserve respect? Absolutely. I would argue that the vast majority of them do this such as Islam, Black Lives Matter, and socialism. Only a very few such as Objectivism and Christianity and the fundamental establishment of this nation hold that every human is equal before the law. What is of particular note, however, is that it is their station as human beings that determines their rights - not their deeds. We can initially view someone with the respect due towards another human being with great potential to do wonderful things, or we can initially view another with the contempt that they will never measure up to our standards.
Anyway, thanks for the rational discussion.
Recognizing the potential of man is not faith
When compared to each other, perhaps. But that is a different comparison than to compare man to rocks, trees, or snails. And in comparison to every other type of life on this planet, human beings are exceptional. We are a huge cut above everything else on this planet. That was my point.
You want to compare one human being to another in order to determine whether or not someone is worthy of your "respect". I simply point out that this has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with utility. You want to tie utility to respect through such a comparison. I'm simply pointing out that in doing so one creates an arbitrary and wholly-subjective value of humankind. To me, that is an incredibly dangerous road because it leads to dehumanization. It enables the rationalization that because someone is not the kind of human being I see as the ideal that I can treat them differently. It denies the notion of universal human rights - which originate not from utility, but from humanity itself.
"Recognizing the potential of man is not faith"
Faith is a belief in something that can not be verified at the present. Potential (non-electrical that is) is entirely a measurement or expression of faith because it relies on events that have not yet taken place. Since potential can not rely on evidence or proof, what other term would you use if not faith?
A person has rights whether or not he has earned respect.
The human potential is known from our nature as rational beings. That is based on empirical, conceptual knowledge of the human species, not faith. Knowledge of a potential does not mean that any particular person will achieve what he is capable of. The existence of potential does not mean that it will ever be actualized at all. Faith is leaping to the conclusion that a person has or will without evidence.
"The human potential is known from our nature as rational beings."
Potential always refers to an unrealized future and never a known state. If one claims they know the end state of any human being or the human race in aggregate, one is professing that they possess either a time machine or supernatural capabilities. Would you care to rephrase this or explain further what you mean by this?
"That is based on empirical, conceptual knowledge of the human species, not faith."
Knowledge applies only to the past - never the future. To assert that one can know (not merely speculate) regarding the future is to claim the possibility of prophets and/or the supernatural. Again, faith deals with that which may be but for which there may be little or no current evidence. To act based on potential is to exercise faith.
"The existence of potential does not mean that it will ever be actualized at all."
I agree, but this stands very much at odds with your previous statement which asserts a knowledge of the future. To someone who knows, potential evaporates into what is and what is not.
I do have to admit: how we respect others and others respect us is kind of complex if you think about it too much.
I begin by respecting individuals unless they have done something that indicates they have not deserved my respect. It is a quick initial judgement. Part of that judgement is determined by using rational, objective observations and asking if they are doing the right thing (yes or no) in accordance with objectivism. If it is a no, they have to earn the respect and if it is a yes, the respect is assumed until proven otherwise.
Likewise for myself. I try to do the right thing to make the world a better place. I sometimes falter a bit and probably have to earn the respect of others as I am sure I do not always make that initial good impression. I hope that people respect me, but I know I don't do things for reverence. I do good for the sake of doing so and enter into mutually beneficial relationships or contracts with people for my own gain and the gain of mankind in the process. I respect those who do the same thing.
I do have a lot of respect (deep respect) for many people, the good things they do and for the contributions they make to advance the world into the future, but am not too sure I revere them. Where does one draw the line? That is hard, if not impossible, to pinpoint and up to the individual to determine.
The entitlement complex drives me crazy. As Rand said: "Depraved is the man without purpose."
We have to earn our way and charity should not be asked for. People should not feel obligated or coerced to do acts of charity. Many atheist objectivists are quite charitable just because they want to be, and not for reward or fear of punishment.
I think of the people John Galt invited to his colony in the mountains and extrapolate that to society. I estimate that we rely on about fifteen to twenty percent (give or take) of the population to advance us into the future. The rest of the population makes up the rest. I would love to think I might be in the upper fifteen to twenty percent but am doubtful. All I can do is try my best to be one of them. I respect others who at leas try. I do have contempt for those who do not try and those who would make the world worse.
Sorry for the ramble. I hope it makes sense.
I might not have been very clear.
Thanks.
EDIT: corrected a typo
I have said that part of the causes of delusional thinking in Nazi Germany was that the innate sense of propriety in the German people became an exaggerated sense of responsibility to others, and consequently to the state, under the influence of Kantian, Hegelian, and Marxist philosophies. And of course the philosophy of many others, including Nietzsche.
Europeans should not try to introspect.
Interesting that the philosophers I cited were German.
The acceptance of full responsibility for one’s own choices and actions (and their consequences) is such a demanding moral discipline that many men seek to escape it by surrendering to what they believe is the easy, automatic, unthinking safety of a morality of “duty.” They learn better, often when it is too late.
The disciple of causation faces life without inexplicable chains, unchosen burdens, impossible demands or supernatural threats. His metaphysical attitude and guiding moral principle can best be summed up by an old Spanish proverb: “God said: ‘Take what you want and pay for it.’” But to know one’s own desires, their meaning and their costs requires the highest human virtue: rationality." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/res...
In discussions of selfishness (or self interest) she as well touches on the error of the cultural implantation of this concept of obligation/responsibility to others which encompasses as well the idea of a duty/responsibility of respect to others, and in general points out that any such feelings are anti-individual.
Some, if not many, will counter that one must give respect in order to receive respect. I totally reject that notion and more, that the search for respect is a worthwhile expenditure in life. I would argue that the only value of respect is that gained naturally from a life of Objectivist virtues and respect of self.
Yes. Very good.
One small thing... hope I am not being pedantic... Respect has several connotations. I respect a rattle snake because of the danger, but I am loathe to grant respect to a human that shows me disrespect. :) That said, I do agree that one must not 'give' respect in order to receive it, as if it were some moral duty, even to the unearned. However, would you agree there is some value in the reciprocity of respect, ("Some, if not many, will counter that one must give respect in order to receive respect.") in proper connotation?
Regards,
O.A.
My thoughts on reciprocity of respect is really a common public courtesy rather than an actual respect. I grew up in a rural area in which it was understood that you didn't knock another man's hat off, or 'dress him down' in public. But I'm not sure if that was reciprocity of respect or public courtesy.
I like it. :) I too grew up and still live in a rural area. I would not have it any other way. And courtesy is akin to one common connotation of the word respect. Perhaps my vernacular is a bit provincial? :) Hmmm, I will have to chew on that one a bit. Tally-ho! Back to Webster I go!
Regards,
O.A.
As to responsibility, I came across this line in a story by A. Parra (y Figueredo) called "Totenbuch":
"Coercion is rationalized so that responsibility can be disclaimed." as Eichmann did.
Unless you respect yourself, you can not respect another.
Disdain = "But I don't think of you."
As you know, Roark to Toohey.
To teach my children what I have learned from Ms. Rand and that is self is the most important part of living and that all other components come from that. Please let me know where I am going wrong and I wish I had an opportunity to meet and learn directly what her thoughts were on the evolution of both society and her disciples.
I hope you are reading the non-fiction by Rand and her trusted associates. Most readers of her fiction don't do that and end up with an enjoyment of her writing without an understanding of that's the case.
"I hope you are reading the non-fiction by Rand and her trusted associates. Most readers of her fiction don't do that and end up with an enjoyment of her writing without an understanding of [see below] that's the case."
[philosophy in general, Objectivism in particular, and how it differs (so greatly) from all others]
BT
Thom Hartmann is a good example. He has admitted to not understand Atlas Shrugged (he couldn't get past the first ten pages) but that doesn't stop him from tearing it apart.
Both sides do Objectivism a disservice.
The goal is to study and accurately describe Reality. Pursue reality wherever it takes you, but don't close yourself off into a rigid mindset. That turns scientific study into mere zealotry and hero-worship. Rand's contributions to that study shouldn't be discounted or misrepresented, but Rand herself had no wish to be a deity.
Philosophy is a human creation to effectively use our human capacity for conceptual reasoning to understand what's relevant to us in reality. That's a long sentence to clarify the essential nature of this stuff. Rand has made significant contributions to all five branches of philosophy while standing on the shoulders of giants like Aristotle.
As Craig Biddle has said, "Saying Ayn Rand said.." is not an argument. To be responsible thinkers, we need to keep clear and distinct - what I know - and what a particular other individual said or thinks. Those others' opinions, observations, etc. are raw material to consider in forming our own conclusions. And we may just rely on them as a trusted source when we think that trust is earned. We don't need to become a subject matter expert in every subject. One can buy by brand and keep that process clear.
Understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy as conceptual formulation of principles of philosophy is not a "rigid mindset" of "zealotry and hero-worship" and does not make her a "deity". Those who think in such religious terms don't know the difference.
Why do you think that we should respect others regardless of what they are? Why would that be morally idealistic?
"Kill reverence and you've killed the hero in man" was a statement by the villain Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead -- who was out to kill heroism and recognition of it. It didn't mean that Ayn Rand thought that everyone is a hero regardless of what he does with his life. Toohey was an egalitarian nihilist out to kill the best in man and heroism as such.
For what Ayn Rand meant by reverence for man see the quote from her journals elsewhere on this page at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
in her case they are NOT AS SMART AS THE TEACHER. I have read people who contribute to this site who also think they know more than Miss Rand, it is just not so!
With ARI's investment in spreading use of Objectivism as effective thinking tools for new generations of curious, bright individuals, we are increasing the critical mass we need to effect our cultural recovery. Consider the success of John A. Allison at BB&T and Cato Inst. as well as his two books. And he was even vetted as potential Treasury Sec. under Trump.
So there are two aspects to using Objectivism. First is for effective thinking and pursuing personal happiness. The second is to influence our culture out of a respect for humanity in principle and our progeny in particular. There's the people we love and those we could potentially love.
See Jean Moroney Binswanger's work in her Thinking Directions website: thinkingdirections.com.
This is original work, standing on the shoulders of giants like Rand and others to help us be more effective human beings. This is at an individual level and in the immensely valuable interactions and collaborations with others - think division of labor; cooperation where many hands make like work; teamwork in an orchestra or a sports team; or in my work, software development teams where we facilitate collaborative, cross-function teams of subject matter experts working to a shared (agreed to) goal.
When people who seek personal happiness and have not read Rand meet a few people using it as a rationalization to despise people, they're inclined to avoid it figuring it's probably bitter and nasty stuff-- the opposite of what it's actually about. That is unfortunate.
I even used that approach as a corrections officer, though there were times when my inner allosaur was awakened.
Recall an inmate telling an infirmary nurse I was dating that I was okay but not to make me mad.
Old dino will even say "sir" or "ma'am" to a kid at a fast food restaurant. Figure that cuts down the odds of someone spitting on my food..
Sometimes the misrepresentation is due to ignorance or sloppiness, other times through deliberate action intended to fight against her ideas.
When I initially encountered Rand, it was through a friend who understood Objectivism. My approach was to ask him about the details. Or rather, about what I imagined to be the the details. He ultimately became disgusted with my second-hand approach and refused further questions. I was stuck having to read Rand's own words.
Anyone who is selling you a revised version of Rand's ideas is not supporting Rand. Anyone who is selling you amplifications of her ideas, or extensions into areas she addressed only lightly, should be examined "in the clear light of day" just as you would inspect second-hand machinery or leather goods. (We once bought some used carriage harness for our horses at night. Did not discover it was rotten until the following day, illuminated by sunshine.) Some rotten ideas look beautiful until you check your premises, and discover that you were deluding yourself.
My Objectivist approach to what your saying works for me. I bolster myself and my family so that I can contribute more to society. When I'm charitable it's with the accuracy of a cruise missile.
Those who aren't really Objectivists are easily led by men in costumes with guns. They like war. They are looking for the next government goodie, as long as their GOP officials are involved, of course.
Knowledge does not apply "only to the past - never to the future". Knowing what is by its nature is not "speculation" and not "faith". Faith is not about what "may be", it is belief without evidence. We know what humans are.
If knowledge were only about the past, we would have no knowledge, including all of science -- which is the result of believing on faith. The fact that man's knowledge is not infallible is the reason why the method of observation and logic is required to exercise reason. Knowledge is not automatic, it requires strict adherence to rules of knowing, which both faith and skepticism deny and prohibit. The comparison is shown in the constant retreat of religion before the advances of science.
The claims by advocates of faith that knowledge can only be about the past illustrates how skepticism and faith are two sides of the same coin: Faith, with its belief in the arbitrary, leads to skepticism in the wake of its cognitive wreckage. Skepticism denies any means of knowing, leaving faith as the only way to try to stumble through the rubble of what is left of the intellect. Both are an attempt to deny the means of human knowledge through reason exercised by the method of logic,attempting to replace it with subjectivism.
A good example of this is your average liberal and his notion about his constitutional rights...he naturally assumes his "Rights" come from the constitution....they of course do not. It is even funnier to realize that the think they have rights that are not even discussed in the document.....not that any of them have ever actually read it!
It's important to acknowledge that terms have multiple meanings as evidenced by multiple definitions in a dictionary. The onus is on the speaker to say - I'm using the term this way, not that. Then one can talk about the value or disvalue of them. Peter Schwartz and other have been writing on package dealing and packing such packages to get clarity and objectivity.
This is a highly valuable thinking skill to learn. demonstrate and teach to others.
This seems like error of the converse and/or poisoning the well.
I think you need to restate your proposition before I could answer it.
In any event, that is not exactly what I am saying. I was answering the question posed. Let me expand upon it.
Objectivism seems to have two fundamental lines of belief: dogmatic and open. I will only mention the dogmatic aspect here because that is the thrust of the original question posed.
A Dogmatic Objectivist (DO) is a person who thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong. For the DOs, Objectivism isn’t about self-development, but about adhering to a set of rigid beliefs and following the rules laid down by Objectivist authorities.
In doing so, the DOs feel compelled to defend the approved beliefs against anyone who dares to question them, asserting their “truth” over other people’s, attacking the others personally instead of intellectually. For a DO, the fact other people have different beliefs as a personal affront to the DO, since it implies the possibility their own belief(s) may not be true.
In the process a DO feels the driving need to convince other people they’re wrong and use ad hominem argument at all levels so the Dos can thereby prove to themselves they are right.
Perhaps dogmatic Objectivism stems from a psychological need for group identity and belonging, together with a need for certainty and meaning. Who knows? But there does appear to be an impulse in human beings to define ourselves, whether it’s as an Objectivist, Christian, or a Yankees fan.
Whatever the root, I believe dogmatic anything is dangerous because it ends intellectual investigation, thus destroying progress, and creates an in-out group mentality, thus destroying civility. One need look no further than posts in this thread to see current examples of this, and the post below (or most his posts) by ewv is a prime illustration.
My more than half century experience as an Objectivist with DOs reveals they withdraw empathy and morality from other groups, see “others” as inferior, ignorant and immoral and treat others as enemies at a the most trivial difference, or even if the “other” simply asks a question. Objectivism is supposed to be about individualism, but DOs view all “other” groups (or even individuals) as general entities, rather than as separate individuals.
Until the dogmatic attitude changes, I see Objectivism as the proverbial flash in the intellectual pan with its current flame growing ever smaller.
Michael Shermer, in his book “Why People Believe Weird Things,” has a chapter entitled “The Unlikeliest Cult” in which he deals with Ayn Rand, Objectivism and the Cult of Personality. I recommend the entire book, but I have seen this chapter on the internet in PDF if you don’t want to buy the book.
He said many Enlightenment ideas are just our mythology. I said "no!" to the book. I think understanding the world using models based on experiment and respecting people's right to be left are just things we discovered, not myths or dogma. But I know it's hard to pull yourself out of it. Believers of dogma think they've found the truth. So it has me thinking.
I still don't see the ideas in the 3 Rand books I've read as promoting dogma. It's more about being willing to ignore dogma.