Clearly Confused
The philosophy called Objectivism, it's a philosophy with a difference for those who believe 'philosophy' as something to blindly believe in and not analysing and understanding. For, it says Reason is your means of survival. It proclaims Give me liberty or give me death, signifying that if I cannot be myself, then I better shalln't be at all!
I too am fascinated by the strength of the character Howard Roark( Fountainhead), to stand emotionally immune to people around him, nomatter what they are or do to him, be it - they hate him, they betray him, they like him, they flatter him... And thats the freedom of thought and freedom in life that Ayn Rand advocates.
To essentially summarize it in her own words,
" Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit."
Though I admire Objectivism for all of what it is, there are definitely contradictions that clearly confuse me.
Objectivism rejects the morality in living for others. By this very phrase, I comeout with two interpretations: First, you are concerned with your own image on other people's minds, which is termed as 'second-hand living' by AynRand. Second is when your purpose is to fulfill other's purpose, that is, when you do something for other's happiness or betterment and that doesnot contribute to your personal benefit.
But dont we feel good or happy when, at the least, our smallest gesture or deed brings a smile in a total stranger's face? Talking of second-hand living, aren't we concerned about our image in our loved one's minds and abstain from doing things that may hurt their feelings?
Objectivism rejects the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).
But are all forces in control of man? How about genetic disorders in control of the patient, for example?
Objectivism says facts are facts and your reasoning always leads you in the right path when they are based on facts.
But doesnt the interpretation of facts change based on prior knowledge, place/time, situation etc?
After all these and more confusions, I feel objectivism is too ideal, for, it just takes head(reasoning) into account and not the heart(feelings and emotions) of men. Definitely it is as essential as a person's private space around him but it is also limited to that extent.
posted by DD @ 7:00 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I guess, u are really clearly confused about Ayn!..u r basic premises like, facts are interpreted based on situations is a fallacy...facts are facts...period..there is no interpretation of facts...if they are subject to interpretation(that too vaired interpretation..then are they facts or opinions?)..ask some hard questions..fact cant be left to interpretations!..may be u need to read this: Philosophy: who needs it?" that will clear your doubts!..prolly might come down to bang in a week's time...will drop that book if u prefer!
i am extremely confused reading this article..
Can you summarize what you are actually meaning in simple words..
I will do that for u skely...she says that she cant understand a book and needs "Konaar Tamizh Urai" sort of book(guide) to understand!:P
Hey, I am glad that you have written on Objectivism. I think looking at it in a broader sense might help us understand Rand.
"Living for others" -- If Beethoven or Einstein had decided to do what the society/family expected them to do , we would not have seen geniuses and such contributions to society . Individualism is what drives the world , else we are all commodities.
Rand is against any form of mysticism. That explains the "victim of forces" arguments.
Read "We the Living" or "Anthem" which explains this much more clearly.
Thanks Krish..
i never had this problem, because i always read konar book(s), and once upon a time thought that they were the only books available for Tamil.
Serious Comment below,
DD, It doesn't matter whether you read the actual book( living for others) or konar (living for yourself), as the fact is you are reading the same stuff.(living the same life).
So, if you read the stuffs in konar, you would still be reading the same text book,and vice-versa.
You cannot split 'living for others' and "living for yourself".. They are one and the same with but with different names..
>> But dont we feel good or happy when, at the least, our smallest gesture or deed brings a smile in a total stranger's face?
Well, aren't u living for yourself even here? The objective in the end being that you feel good or happy.
Though I have no inclination towards "complete" objectivism, I cannot help but agree with Ayn that you must live for yourself, atleast before you think of others. When you spend the entire life living for others, it is as if you have not fulfilled your own purpose in life.
>> Objectivism says facts are facts and your reasoning always leads you in the right path when they are based on facts.
What is reasoning? It's a means to interpretation of facts and/or beliefs. So when your reasoning is based on facts, your interpretation being based on facts leads u in the right direction.
Post a Comment
<< Home