Return to: Home | Blogs | The Faith Column

Objectivism’s Appeal and its Demands

In his final blog, Onkar Ghate asks where do the attractions of Objectivism lie, and what does it require of us?

I first picked up Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged in high school and was, like many readers, immediately enthralled. I devoured the thousand-page book in a few days. The story is a mystery, and I had to see how it ended. But it was more than that. Rand’s mind was unlike any other I had encountered. She took ideas and morality seriously.

Good and evil were not bromides to be trotted out as a duty in corporate speeches and presidential addresses, only to be ignored in the next day’s activities as hot air. The nature of good and evil was to be thought about, understood, and then lived by. In Atlas Rand re-conceives the idea of selfishness and helps us see why selfishness is not evil but profoundly moral and, in fact, exceedingly rare. Further, she reveals that the ideas about morality we’ve been taught since childhood entrench injustice.

When the blessed are the poor in spirit—and this idea has much wider purview than just Christianity—the damned have to be those who choose to lead rational, productive lives, i.e., the rich in spirit. As a character in Atlas thinks to himself during a pivotal scene: “There is no escape from justice, nothing can be unearned or unpaid for in the universe, neither in matter nor in spirit—and if the guilty do not pay, then the innocent have to pay it.”

Rand excites young minds, as she did mine, because her writings brim with radical ideas. They offer a unique philosophy of life. Nevertheless, it’s fairly common to meet people who say that Rand was an important influence in their youth, which they’ve since outgrown. This phenomenon used to puzzle me, but no longer, because I now realize it’s not obvious how to live by a philosophy.

Most people have only one model: religion. To live by a philosophy, they implicitly assume, is to accept a list of out-of-the-blue commandments. “Thou shall have orange hair”—because the hero of Rand’s The Fountainhead has orange hair. “Thou shall make lots of money”—because the heroes of Atlas are industrialists. “Thou shall not work on teams”—because the hero of The Fountainhead works alone.

This converts Objectivism to dogma, and so what the philosophy promises does not materialize. The person attracted to Rand’s vision does not experience happiness and a sense of being at home in the universe. He experiences frustration and alienation.

His solution, often, is to discard, as an indulgence of youth, his interest in Objectivism and become an adult—which to him means: to live without a framework of basic principles, i.e., without a philosophy.

The person becomes pragmatic. There is no consistency in his ideas, no overarching theme or direction to his life, no overall harmony or integration in his soul. He may experience periodic joys, but not the lasting joy that is happiness.

To live a philosophical life requires that we approach philosophy not as dogma but as science. We must put in the long hours of thinking necessary to truly understand for ourselves why, say, contrary to religion’s teachings existence has primacy over consciousness and selfishness is moral. We then actually have to make use of these principles.

Just as more thinking is needed to use true scientific principles to build an airplane, so more thinking is needed to use true philosophical principles to become the architect of our own happiness.

In our teenage and college years we often think about the important issues of life, only to lose sight of them when we enter the adult world. Through a series of small compromises and surrenders, we abandon our youthful vision of what life could be.

To retain the conviction that big ideas matter, we must put in the intellectual work. We must work constantly to see philosophical principles embedded in the concrete facts of daily life: philosophical principles are true precisely because they enable us to make sense of the seemingly incomprehensible—our families, say, or the war in Iraq. And we must strive constantly to deal with the concrete facts of daily life, of decisions about our next career move or the next step in our child’s education, only in terms of philosophical principles.

If we do this, then a true philosophy, which is what I think Objectivism is, offers us an incomparable gift: it equips us to be happy.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

22 comments from readers

anand
21 September 2007 at 14:05

You seem to imply that intellectual work is a prerequisite to have an overarching philosophical direction in life. And when a person does not have an overarching direction, he can only experience fleeting joy but not true happiness.

So only intellectuals can experience lasting happiness, according to you. Any exception to this only-intelligent-will-be-happy hypothesis will pull down the whole edifice of your argument.

Let me think of the happiest person I have actually met in my life and see if this hypothesis works.

I am thinking of a spiritual leader in my life who comes closest to "lasting joy that is happiness". His life is characterised with simplicity not intellect.

raemeg
21 September 2007 at 16:16

(speaking only for myself)

It's true that one must seek to understand the world and one's inner workings in order to create and direct one's happiness. However, to be intellectual is not necessarily to be a scholar. I am sure that if you examine your spiritual leader's life more closely you'll see a man who is primarily *thoughtful* and that the simplicity of his life is born out of diligent consideration of facts and options and examination of long-term consequences.

The scientist that is Mr. Ghate's symbol of the intellectual man is an experimenter and a dealer in principles. It is true that in the specialized sciences, it takes a great deal of intellectual capacity to discover and develop new principles. But in the matters of our lives, anyone, even those of modest intelligence, can, with the same *kind* of effort as performed by the scientist, achieve the understanding of his life and circumstances that it takes to direct his life toward his chosen purpose. The intellectual is anyone who chooses to respect the mind: to honor it as the source of all our values.

anand
21 September 2007 at 17:37

Thanks for clarifying reameg. This is turning interesting.

So, if my spiritual leader, who experiences "lasting joy or happiness" does not subscribe to overarching rationalism, emphasis on self-interest etc, then Objectivism is only a possible means of happiness. It ought not to be projected as the sole meaningful way to lead a happy life.

I also wonder why Objectivists use words like "selfish" when they don't really mean it in the sense people perceive. Is it just for shocking people to pay attention to them? Why can't they use more neutral terms like self-interest??

raemeg
21 September 2007 at 22:39

Just as the scientist subscribes only to observations of the world and to reasoning based on those observations, and eschews all other claims to knowledge, so do all intellectuals, even those of modest capacity. Objectivism holds that it is only the intellect, our capacity to abstract and to integrate and to form theories and principles from the evidence of the senses, that produces life and its rewards, in every arena. I must confess that in this forum I am unprepared for an extended defense of the tenets of Objectivism, but to put it briefly and with as little confrontation as I can: I think that to the extent to which reason governs your leader's (or any man's) thoughts and actions he will be happy and to the extent to which faith governs he will meet only with failure and frustration. In fact, The Fountainhead is all about this very issue.

As for the choice of vocabulary, I suspect different Objectivists have different reasons for their picks. I think it depends on what they are trying achieve (grabbing attention, being strictly precise, being poetic, etc.). Myself, I use the word selfish for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I tend to try to minimize my poetry and metaphor when I am trying to explain something, and the denotative meaning of selfish has no particular emotional value. It simply means "concern for one's own interests". But for another thing, I think it is important not to concede the connotation, the imagery, the feeling that often goes along with that word. I, for one, don't imagine "baby-killing monsters" when I hear the word selfish, and I don't really regard such "individuals" (if they retain any humanity at all) as acting out of selfishness. I reject the notion that failure to take into account the fact that I must interact with other minds (which is what theft and fraud amount to) is selfish. In fact, I think it is rather *self-less*.

One of the overarching themes of Objectivism is the notion that predator and prey are merely two sides of the same false ethical coin. Objectivist scholars have gone out of their way, starting with Rand herself, to explain that as altruist ethics are not selfish, in the same fundamental way neither are such ethics as advocate sacrificing others to the self. The use of the word selfish, for me, aside from strict linguistic accuracy, is a refusal to allow the opposing idea to set the terms for the debate.

Rachel

anand
22 September 2007 at 03:49

Rachel:

"I think that to the extent to which reason governs your leader's (or any man's) thoughts and actions he will be happy and to the extent to which faith governs he will meet only with failure and frustration. "

This just seems like another form of dogma. Only rationality leads to happiness and faith leads to failure? Any proof there??

BTW, I susbscribe to my comments only here and don't support anyone else's.

Apple
22 September 2007 at 07:11

Oh, Anand, don't be selectively logical all of a sudden now. Proof presumes reasoning (with rationality being the virtue of reasoning, and with reasoning being a species of thinking). If your standard of evidence is faith, then why need you proof? Just believe in happiness. Don't flip flop. Have some integrity and trust in your faith. The divine spirit will provide, surely.

As an aside, "Anand" is Sanskrit to mean "happiness" or "bliss" and is an Indian name. You're Indian-Brit, right? If so, will you please lead this bloke back to the light. His blog is ergosum.wordpress.com.

As another aside, it is really a foolish thing for Mr. Onkar Ghate to venture into the faithful's territory. He worked hard to condense a philosophy of reason into four short posts to tantalize and pique their interest with such words as, "The life to aspire to, then, is one of passionate logic and logical passions," He must have thought he could reach some souls. The poor soul! Well, let's *prove* him wrong.

anand
22 September 2007 at 08:51

Apple:

I understand what you are saying. Thanks.

And, I am Indian, I live in India.

See, objectivists wont understand what you said. And your word is as good as anyone else's. I just wish they would try other forms before rejecting them. For that, they should stop being arrogant and intolerant.

Dave N. in Sacramento
25 September 2007 at 05:14

Anand and Apple,

Sometimes I myself do get a bit exasperated when I feel that Objectivists are oversimplifying complicated issues.

But does it occur to you guys that you might be oversimplifying just a wee bit here also?

In particular, might you just be ignoring the role of fraud and dumb luck in human behavior?

Aristotle pointed out long ago that no one can control luck – he conceded that a careful, virtuous man might end up unhappy due to bad luck, and a careless, irresponsible man might end up happy due to good lick.

Let’s call this the “Forrest Gump” phenomenon.

But as the allusion to dear old Forrest Gump suggests, perhaps this occurs a bit more often on stage and screen, in novels, and in myths, than in real life. There are some real-life Forrest Gumps, but is it really wise to gamble on being one of those lucky few?

Also, not all the “spiritual” people who pretend to be happy are. A while back, I knew a Baptist preacher, a cheerful, positive type whom most people would have assumed was happy. A few years later, he was kicked out of his pulpit when it was discovered that he was having an affair with a member of the congregation. I suppose that we can assume that, at least in his married life, he was not as happy as he had claimed to be.

Anyone who has followed the news for the last couple decades can name numerous examples of similar “spiritual” happy-but-not-really-happy people.

“Spiritual” people are generally out for something – sometimes money, sometimes fame, sometimes power over other people. But, if they were to announce that their “spirituality” made them unhappy, they would have a lot of trouble selling the product! So, somehow, nearly all spiritual people portray themselves as being happy, even when it eventually turns out that they are anything but.

Anand, I do not know your spiritual leader. But, based on the common experience of mankind, it is a pretty good bet that he is taking you for a ride. I don’t know if you are giving him money or merely admiration, but you’ve already made it clear that you are giving him something he has not earned. When you eventually find out he is a fraud, remember – you heard it here first.

And, Rachel, don’t let these guys get your goat. Apple, specifically, is trying to play the role of harlequin here, and, alas, not doing a very good job at it. (Did you see the silly, almost incomprehensible, comments relating to physics that he made about Ghate’s previous article? His silliness caught my attention because I happen to be a Ph.D. physicist.) We can argue interminably about Ayn Rand, Onkar Ghate, and our dear friends Apple and Anand. But the important point is that there is a real world out there regardless of whether any of us chooses to acknowledge that or not. I think you have a nice apprehension of that central fact. And that fact seems to frighten dear Apple a great deal.

Dave

Apple
25 September 2007 at 22:02

Dave, thanks for replying. I don't know about the Harlequin part, but I am not sorry for what I wrote about Your House. Now if you had compared it as that of Kiki Holcombe or as one small voice, I might be offended. In the territory of the faithful, my Objectivist friend, you don't have a chance. Look at poor Mr. Ghate's writings.

As to your other comment about QM theories, I merely point out that breaking dichotomies is somewhat of a specialty for Objectivists. And in this case, I believe you ought to believe in the law of identity as applied to action. Don't you think so? Determinism is not a floor to build Your House. And physicists are definitely not floor cleaners.

Peace Y'all

Dave N. in Sacramento
25 September 2007 at 23:10

Apple,

Thanks for proving my point -- try as you might, you're just not that funny.

And why do you think I'm an Objectivist? Wander around the Web and here and there you can find me making rather strong criticisms of (some) Objectivists (by the way, I’m supposed to be “Dave M.” not “Dave N”). I owe allegiance to no party or ideology save the party of truth.

I'm just a humble physicist who enjoys exposing frauds and con artists for what they are. A guy has to get his kicks somewhere.

And I'm not "building" on determinism or on indeterminism. Like any serious scientist, I'm doing what I can to build my theories on reality. It's not easy, but somebody has to do it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have all this wonderful technology that you're using to make a fool of yourself.

And that would be a shame, now wouldn't it?

Dave

Apple
26 September 2007 at 04:00

This time, I am sorry for mistaking you to be an Objectivist. Good luck with physics.

haider
26 September 2007 at 11:05

Anand,

I believe that the essential points Dr Ghate is making are:

- To experience happiness (long-term joy), you must be able to connect your experiences into a unified whole. This can only be done with a comprehensive view of yourself and your relation to the world. If you lack this approach, you will not be able to make sense of your feelings or your surroundings.

This comprehensive view is what religions and philosophies try to develop.

- There is happiness from embracing reality, and happiness from evading reality. To embrace reality, you must accept reality for what it is, and, therefore, must use your mind to understand reality (since emotions are not "tools of cognition" i.e. they cannot be used to determine the nature of reality). Evading reality is either to avoid thinking about reality, or to accept an understanding of reality on the grounds of emotional appeal. Since emotions cannot be used to know or understand reality, by basing your views of reality on your emotions, you are essentially evading reality. You are constructing an understanding of reality based on what you *want* reality to be like, and not on what reality is.

Any form of happiness that is experienced from evading reality is not really happiness, or joy of living in this world. It is happiness - i.e. an emotional state - that is induced by delusion. People who experience such a state cannot maintain it for the long term, and especially without clashing with reality, or needing more delusion and evasion.

This is just a comment, so the issue being discussed obviously requires more detail to cover extensively. And I believe Dr Ghate is keeping his articles simple and to the point so he can introduce the essentials of Objectivism, but to gain a better understanding of the philosophy, you'd have to consult the books.

All the best,

Haider

Breeze
27 September 2007 at 06:14

Dear Onkar,

Strangely and frequently I observe that some event in my life is formalized and expounded upon almost simultaneously in an Op-ed article. I don't know if it is sheer coincidence or just that the issues have reached a point of convergence by a culmination of events in our culture that they must be expounded upon by a learned journalist or author such as yourself.

Your article about Objectivism being a happy pill is extremely accurate in my opinion and pertains to my personal life.

I am an practising philosophical objectivist now and live my life according to these principles of truth. I have discovered in the last 10 years that I have been an objectivist since I was a child. But it took me all my life to find my true self and I go back to my thoughts as a small child. . . ie..those thoughts about the irrationality of people who accepted that the shedding of blood in a religious sacrafice in order to find some kind of redemption or goodness was such convoluted thinking to me, along with so many other things about religion and about emotionalism, etc. I was not content until my adulthood when I discovered my philosophical conviction to objectivism, with the help of the rich sources of information available at the Ayn Rand Institute.

During those years of strife, I did not turn to addictive behavior, perhaps due to my Fathers' influence, I was always one to use reason, Instinctively I rejected most life threatening behaviors.

My Father told me his D-Day story when he landed in Normandy with the first wave of Canadians. He said , "they passed around a bottle of rum to calm our nerves on the U-boat on the way to the beaches but I refused a drink because I knew I would need all my wits about me when we landed."

This evening a new neighbor who I am just getting to know seems to be trying hard to attach herself to me. I found her likeable and rational at first. However, tonite I saw another side to her. She called and threated to kill herself and her dog. I spoke to her about mood changing drugs and tranquilizers which I suspect she indulges in. I told her how you cannot solve any problems in your life if you don't give them a chance to brew in your mind and work out possible solutions. This may mean you have a period of depression but it is likely a good thing - a struggle which could be a productive time of reasoning. How can an intoxicated mind solve problems?

Some seem to have a strong survival instinct for some reason we can't explain completely. Our childhoods may play a integral part. I have been a deep thinker since I was a small child (6 or 7) and I often said to myself , "why am I always thinking?"

I am so fortunate to have discovered Ayn Rand's Objectivism and to have the ability to apply its principled philosophy in my daily life. It has truly brought me contentment.

Gail,

Calgary

anand
27 September 2007 at 07:54

Haider,

Thanks for a patient reply. You seem to be one of the few people who is honest in discussing these issues, especially among objectivists.

Reality is a very delicate concept. Before one labels something as real and something else as delusional, one should make an honest effort at understanding reality.

In physics, people tried to understand reality of atoms using what they thought was reality. For example, people thought one could tell where a particular atom was at a given time and specify the speed with which it was moving. Makes sense right?, I can tell where I am and what speed I am moving at.

However, the "reality" of atoms is quite different from what you perceive. Talking of a particular position and a particular speed at the same time is meaningless. This is not the delusion of Neils Bohr as Einstein thought, but this is reality.

Similarly, there are aspects of life at the macro level which others think are delusional because they are counter-intuitive. But these aspects constitute reality. I will not attempt to convince further. It is upto you, with an open and patient mind, to explore "reality".

anand
27 September 2007 at 08:02

Dave N.,

So you seem to agree with me in a major sense.

If on the assumption that some person is experiencing happiness without accepting this overarching self-interest concept, then the whole edifice of this objectivism is on shaky ground.

While you might question the "if" part of the above statement, due to your own bad experiences, or inexperience or media projections, the reality of the situation does not change.

bala
27 September 2007 at 15:12

Anand,

Before you start with the assumption of a person experiencing happiness without accepting "overarching" self-interest, it would be helpful to define happiness and try to see if it is logically possible for a person to be happy while not acting in his/her self-interest. In the Objectivist sense, happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy. Joy is the basic feeling of well-being that an individual experiences. Joy is an indication that the person's actions are in consonance with the sustenance of his life. When this joy is experienced without violation of his fundamental values, an individual experiences happiness. Violation of values causes unhappiness. The contradiction that can mar happiness is therefore between the feeling of joy and a violation of the values that the person holds dear.

To take an example, to a man guided completely by rational selfishness (of the Objectivist kind), the Right to Life of every individual is sacrosanct. Stealing is a violation of the victim's Right to Life. So, a rationally selfish person can never be happy by stealing because the joy he gets by using the stolen good is offset by the unhappiness he experiences by knowing that by violating his victim's Right to Life, he has descended to the level of a savage.

In an objectivist framework, it happiness is rational and true happiness can be experienced ONLY when one acts rationally and selfishly. Happiness is NEVER a matter of arbitrary choices.

As a fellow Indian (living in India too), let me assure you that the "spiritual leader" who claims to be happy without being selfish is either living in a world of delusion (Maya) or is a plain liar.

anand
28 September 2007 at 09:49

bala,

So it means that if an Objectivist is extremely hungry, he cannot steal a loaf of bread, because he will violate this fundamental value of Right to Life of the other guy. Even if it means his life sustainence is at stake!!

However, I do agree that happiness is never with arbitrary choices. Happiness depends on understanding the true nature of the situation you are in. Right Action, then, springs from the realisation of the true nature of the situation and the true nature of the self. There are many means available to understand the true self, most of them do not emphasize intellect.

Right Action leads to happiness. Rigid morals are the source of unhappiness. I still have to interact with an Objectivist who is not incessantly complaining about something or other on a pleasant day. :)

bala
28 September 2007 at 12:31

Anand,

It is incorrect to say that an Objectivist "cannot" steal. Of course he can. The real issue is that if he steals, he would do so with the full knowledge that what he is doing is wrong and would be ready to face an appropriate punishment if caught.

That apart, when you say that "rigid morals are the source of unhappiness", you are starting off with the wrong definition and source of morals. Morals are the signposts that tell us whether our actions are right or wrong. In an objectivist framework, that which one does in the course of exercising one's Right to Life is right. Since every individual has an (logically) equal and inalienable Right to Life, an action that violates another individual's Right to Life is wrong.

This gives us an absolute morality that helps us determine Right and Wrong with absolute certainty in any situation. Two different rationally selfish (Objectivist) individuals would come to the same conclusion of Right and Wrong if the start with the same level of knowledge. Differences in the conclusions can only be on account of differences in the level of knowledge.

Moral flexibility, as you espouse it, is nothing more than saying that Right and Wrong is relative and depends on the opinions of the individual. I am sorry to bust your bubble and remind you that Food is good and Poison kills irrespective of your opinion on the matter. Similarly, wrong remains wrong irrespective of your opinion on the matter.

anand
28 September 2007 at 13:33

Bala,

"Differences in the conclusions can only be on account of differences in the level of knowledge".

Well put, I have to totally agree with this one. This applies to everyone, not just Objectivists. The quest is for true knowledge, through all the means available, not just the intellect.

That apart, did you notice that you defined Poison as something that kills and so by definition, Poison kills? For example, normally polio virus and snake venom would be poisonous, but they are used in vaccines and drugs to preserve and protect lives!! Poison in one case is elixir in another. Right Action is not about opinions, it is about understanding the true nature of the situation and the self.

bala
28 September 2007 at 16:11

anand,

To an objectivist, knowledge is the set of all concepts and principles derived from perceptions an shaped by the consistent application of rationality to these perceptions, which help an individual take the decisions needed to live a happy life.

This knowledge can be either correct or incorrect,. It may also be complete or incomplete. It can never be true or untrue. The phrase "true knowledge" is therefore a false notion.

When you say you are looking for true knowledge, you are by implication labelling the knowledge gained by perception backed by rationality as untrue knowledge. Thus, you are essentially trying to negate the role of rationality in the process building ones knowledge. This is why the phrase "true knowledge" is the most frequently used weapon of the theist to corrupt the very meaning of the word knowledge.

anand
28 September 2007 at 16:48

Ouch! You made me a theist!!

It was a good discussion Bala, thanks for being such a cool Objectivist. This isn't a good forum/format for further debate. Hope you meet more of my kind ;)

bala
28 September 2007 at 20:07

anand,

I did not call you a theist. Sorry if it came across like that. But the phrase you used was (clearly) inadvertently borrowed from the theists. That's all I was trying to point out.

All the best

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

After the truth

29 May 2009 10:09

Islam's young faithful

18 May 2009 17:33

The Pilgrim Pope

14 May 2009 10:53

Technology, the Latter-day way

12 May 2009 09:45

The Age of the E-church

07 May 2009 12:43

Christianity and the Petri dish

06 May 2009 11:48

Judaism and charity

30 April 2009 16:07

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker