Problems with Objectivism
I have been adament about my support for objectivism, but perhaps I should make clear one of my objections to this philosophy as this mysterious John Galt begins leaving messages on my blog. The first is that Ayn Rand sets up a world where people tell the truth as they see it and harshly criticizes anyone who accepts lies instead. I have found this to deeply challenge me personally, but I've also found it deeply divisive to actually express this on someone else. I think people need to think for themselves and that means I need to not demand that people follow my ideology because I tell them so. My Christianity teaches me to be as Bold as Lions, but at the same time as Gentle as Doves; one must speak the truth in love. So, Mr. Galt, whoever you are, if you wish to speak the truth, fine, but do so in love. James is a dear friend of mine and I know him to be an excellent human being. Ayn Rand, for all her insight, died a very lonely death because she did not know how to address people with verying opinions. I have many friends who are not objectivists and some who are violently opposed to that philosophy, but they are all dear to me, including James. I understand the heart of his comment, and that is what's important. The only thing you achieved in your comment to him was pissing me off.
posted by Jesi E. at 4/03/2005 07:15:00 PM
4 Comments:
I quite clearly stated that my "opinion" was just that, and based on scant information; that I could be entirely wrong. I wonder wrong I actually was...but that is beside the point.
I demanded no one follow any philosphy. I recommended that creating core principals upon which to judge matters such as the one in question would prevent such whimsical notions as was discussed. Whether they be Budhist, Hindu, Wiccan, or Navajo in nature, I should think consistancy would be preferrable to randomness. At least it is easier for everyone else to deal with consistant people; afterall they are consistant.
You are certainly correct regarding Ayn Rand. Her beliefs were based on idealogically consistant abstracts, rarely grounded in concrete reality. The other 6 billion people on the planet however live their lives according to either heavily reality based concretes or a mix of the two. She overestimated how much her reason would bridge the two. She was very human.
The very idea of "heaven" and "hell" would totally obliterate objectivism and codify altruism if it were true. Yet she spent scant words attacking this concept, and many others upon which reality based people dwell.
In conclusion, my tone was not intended to be harsh, or overly divicive; obviously I did not succeed. Furthermore I espoused no philosophy.
I did not intend to piss you off. I should much dislike being an object of hostility instead of an object of curiousity. I will take care in the future, if I deem the time worthwhile, to post further on your blog, and with added care.
Here's a question that's just being asked for the asking... the answer doesn't really matter... If I remember my college philosophy, by accepting two diametrically opposed truths, don't we deny the truth of one of them? That is to say; isn't "truth" self-evident, and if an idea isn't self-evident (requiring some outside corroboration) how can it be truth? If the sky is blue, it cannot be green, except in cases of misperception.
(Who wrote that? Kant, maybe? I don't remember...)
The point is this: I think John Galt has a point: Objectivism and Christianity are the essence of opposition... I think Ayn Rand would be spinning in her grave (if she weren't too busy burning in hell) at the idea of a "Christian Objectivist". How do you reconcile the two? Doesn't the truth of one mean the "dis-truth" of the other, or are both ideas of the same species (meaning they are both desperate attempts to understabd the unfathomable will of God, and man's place in it) which are capable of reproduction between them?
I'm not saying anything about the validity of any belief, I'm just asking questions so that I might understand the basis of a belief; and understanding is, afterall, the foundation of love... right?
Take Me to Ms. Black and White's Response.
To jesi, I have no other way to contact John Galt, so I appologize that I must use your blog for this.
This is for John Galt. I read your blog entitled "that men might rise in place of atlas." do you think humanity has purposely ignored sciantific leads that might have found what light is, or the shape of the universe, or any of the other unsolved mysteries of science?
Post a Comment
<< Home