An Objectivist Divorce

The Autonomist ^ | 2/21/04 | Reginald Firehammer

[Hank Kerchief]

 

An Objectivist Divorce

Yesterday, on her blog, NoodleFood, Diana Mertz Hsieh posted, "A Public Statement," announcing the end of her ten year association with The Objectivist Center (TOC).

In her formal letter to David Kelley, Founder and Executive Director of TOC, she briefly outlines the main reasons for her decision. Some of the points are personal ones to which we cannot speak, but she goes on to criticize TOC's commentaries, articles, and op-eds as "uninteresting" and "superficial," making specific criticisms of four specific TOC staff offerings, concluding with this:

"In order to ferret out any underlying philosophical causes of these systemic problems at TOC, I also re-read the founding document of TOC, David Kelley's Truth and Toleration, for the first time in 10 years. I was surprised to find myself in strong disagreement with critical elements of the arguments on almost every issue: moral judgment, tolerance, sanction, and Objectivism as an open system. ... I regard the last, that Objectivism is an "open system," as the most widely misunderstood, deeply flawed, and practically dangerous of the lot...."

We find this particularly interesting, because it is the essential point we made in your own recent article, "Objectivism Characterized", which was, ironically, a response to a criticism by Diana Mertz Hsieh of my, in her words, "characterization of Objectivism," in my book, The Hijacking of a Philosophy.

We regard this announcement by Diana both courageous and important, and we believe the results will be good. We only wish it had not taken her ten years to discover what the TOC is. My characterization of Objectivism may not the best one, but I saw through the mush of the TOC in three weeks, more than 10 years ago.

(Diana has promised a "a much longer, more thorough examination of the issues," she will be "circulating" in a few weeks.)

—Reginald Firehammer (2/21/04)

[Nateman]

I think that's both a limitation and a foundation of Objectivism. Objectivism is defined as the
philosophy of Ayn Rand. She believed that it was the inevitable conclusion of clear thinking. If one concludes something else, it's open for debate, but it's not Objectivism. To some degree, it has to be that way, or it's Subjectivism.

Given a universe that is objective you do only have one truth. Of course you can have many different perspectives. Imagine a wall that is painted black on one side and white on the other. People living on one side of the wall will claim that the wall is white , on the other side the folks will say, nope, this wall is black. Neither of these folks are being subjective, they are giving valid information. They are both correct , they just don't have a view of the whole truth.

[DannyTN]

"Which God? Just about everybody has their own version."

The one the evidence points to as being real.

"Do you really just get to pick and choose?"

Only you can decide what you choose to believe. But that's not to say that the evidence won't point you in a particular direction. You have to decide whether you want to follow the evidence or choose your own way. One path leads to reconciliation with the creator. The other paths .... do not.

"I am convinced the Moslem GOD is about as evil as it gets but one billion people seem to follow that one?"

I agree with you about Islam being evil. Deciding what you will believe is not a decision you can or should make based on group think, regardless of how many people follow Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Hindo or Ozzy Osborne.

"How do you decide when the criteria of choice is faith?"

Faith shouldn't be the only criteria. Truth should probably be the number one criteria. Evidence should be a criteria as well.

You are convinced the Moslem God is evil. Why? What criteria? Because your heart tells you that killing innocent women and children and terrorizing people is wrong. That's truth. I don't know if you or I can write a scientific discourse that proves it's wrong, but in your heart you know what is true.

There is evidence for the God of Judaism and Christianity. "Evidence that demands a verdict, I and II" are two good reference books that plows into the evidence.

"When you have automaticly thrown out reason from your decision?"

Heaven forbid! Don't throw out reason. The God of heaven invites you, "Come let us reason together, though your sins are like scarlett, they shall be white as snow". Reason should guide you there. God's existence in light of the evidence I've seen is the only logical conclusion. Perhaps you haven't seen as much evidence as I've seen. Perhaps you didn't go looking for it. I don't know.

"Just go with the one your parents taught you?"

Nobody, including your parents can decide your beliefs for you. You alone have that responsibility. My parents were an aid. I could see the happiness and peace that radiated from them relative to other people. That was a major factor in my wanting a relationship with their God. But ultimately it was on the evidence I saw that I relized that God is. A combination of truth unparalleled in any other religion, detailed prophecies fulfilled, testimonies of miracles on a scale not seen by other religions, and one on one interaction with God. Learning to listen for His voice, seeing prayers answered, and seeing prayers go unanswered often to learn the reason why later, and sometimes seeing answers that were so direct and so fast to the questions that I asked, that the only reasonable explanation was that I had been heard and answered directly.

"If among all the Gods presented to us do we have any that are consistant with scientific discoverys or that actually predicted them?"

Depends on what you mean by scientific discoveries. I believe the Christian God has a pretty good track record, that ranges from information about the Cosmos, to social sciences, to a confluence of prophecies about the end of the age that appear to be converging at the current and near future.

"If there is a God why should he care about us at all? We'd be to Him like Bacteria are to us. Small, numerous and easily ignored."

I don't have an answer for that other than that it is a testament to God's greatness that He does care about us and about us as individuals. Yes, you would think that a God that could create the Cosmos in all of it's glory wouldn't be mindful of man. Why? You might as well ask why is there anything at all? I don't know. I'm just glad that He is and does care.

[DannyTN]

"Objectivists defend the right of every individual to believe and practice their beliefs and teach their beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are. No Objectivist would ever attempt to prevent any individual from believing or worshipping as they choose."

But they wouldn't consider me an "objetivist" unless I "conformed" to their atheistic beliefs. They would respect my rights, but they would exclude as being somehow non-objective because I didn't agree with them.

The question is, are religious people willing to extend that kind of freedom to all others? Everyone would enjoy freedom of religion under an Objectivist system.

Well, it bears noting that the most religious freedoms have occured in the US, in a system that was set up by a populace that was predominately Christian. While other systems such as those like the Soviets and China that embraced atheism, have suppressed religious freedom. So while objectivists would like to imagine themselves as being the ultimate in religious liberty, in practice it is the Christians who receive good marks.

Now granted, religious freedom in the U.S. is not truly complete, nor should it be. Because there becomes a point where religious freedom and the rights of others collide. Abortion to some is rooted in religion, but there are the rights of the unborn child to consider. Pornography in public places harms children, women and men, but the moral underpinnings are religious in nature because the whole construct of family is religious in nature. We aren't fish who spawn and leave our children to fend for themselves, though there are fishy characters out there.

[elfman2]

Pitiful try. You think you’re the only one with a dictionary? This is the definition of objective that Objectivism took its name from:

"Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. "

You claim evidence leads to Christianity but selectively present evidence to the point of mischaracterization.

[elfman2]

" They are both correct , they just don't have a view of the whole truth. "

Or depending on how they make their claim, speaking of the whole wall, they’re both wrong.

[elfman2]

" They would respect my rights, but they would exclude as being somehow non-objective because I didn't agree with them. "

No, just wrong. You don’t have to believe me. Ask another one.

[CatoRenasci]

Not nearly as many as are lost when you keep such a chip on your shoulder.

[Labyrinthos]

BTW, my last post on this thread was not directed at you personally. I hope you didn't take it that way. I was thinking more of some of the Objectivists I know -- and I know many -- who seem to have difficulty ordering a pizza.

[CatoRenasci]

Fair enough. I took your comment the wrong way.

Objectivists I have known often remind me of party Libertarians I have known: 3rd raters convinced they are 1st raters, but who have been held back by the unfair statist 'system'. Of course, what they don't get is that if they were 1st raters to begin with, none of that would matter and they would succeed in spite of the obstacles.

[Hank Kerchief]

Thanks, DannyTN, for a reasoned and reasonable response. I cannot agree with everything you have said, but I did enjoy you answers.

At least you understand, everyone who disagrees with you, is not your enemy, and that reasonable people can disagree and remain benevolent toward one another.

But they wouldn't consider me an "objetivist" unless I "conformed" to their atheistic beliefs.

That depends on which "Objectivists" you are talking about. Here is a link to "Christian Objectivists."

Hank

[ffusco]

I thought about this some more.
"How can we believe the words on paper if we effect their meaning by reading them."

The meaning of the words don't change, the meaning of the words might mean something different to the same observer at different times. I realize that these things are subjective,like whether I think something has value, but our subjectivity tends to filter what we think we are observing objectively.

For instance , suppose I read a book by a famous novelist and I tell you it was a great book. A year later I re-read it and find it to be just good.

Also considerthe color red: All normally sighted people now waht the color red is. How would you describe the color red? Just another observable,predictable phenomenon.

[elfman2]

"I thought about this some more. "

I’m always happy to hear of someone thinking about such an issue some more.

My previous statement was a response to a recurring claim by Christians that without God we can’t identify an objective reality. AFAIK, religions like Christianity had a monopoly on objectivity in their doctrine before Objectivism. Perhaps there were exceptions in works by people like Aristotle or Locke, but nothing as integrated and complete as what Ayn Rand assembled. The long held argument by Christians was that their morals were passed down by God, and therefore uniquely immune to being twisted to (and corrupted by) individual desires.

Ayn Rand changed that, assembling a philosophy derived from observation of and reasoning through our shared environment and basic human condition. She advocated independent thought, but insisted that her conclusions were the only correct ones. That’s what makes Objectivism “objective”, being derived from an objective reality and not bendable to personal preference. Nevertheless, a few diehard evangelical Christians refuse to surrender their exclusive objectivity claim to her 50 year old philosophy, and take the same tired shots at it with claims that subjectivity is impossible.

From what I see, their arguments are based on either the claim that we’re possibly experiencing reality differently, similar to your color of red predicament, or the more obvious effect that we value experience differently.

Regarding the former, they ignore the fact that the same improbable scenario that we’re viewing different worlds would mean that we’re viewing different Bibles. So that infinitesimally small chance should be factored out of both Christianity and Objectivism. The same goes for the latter, the different value people place on reading the same book at different times that you referred to. It’s universal, and needs to be accounted for by both theistic and atheistic doctrine.

Objectivism may be fundamentally flawed, but not because it’s subjective. IMO, it’s at least as objective as Christianity.

(CatoRenasci, I’ve cc’ed you because of some thought provoking comments of yours above.)

[ffusco]

Thanks. I'll have to chew on that for a while.