Objectivist Life Scorecard
I used to be a card-carrying Objectivist. I started a campus club, read all of Ayn Rand's books , etc. Then I met a few people who said they used to be into Objectivism. Used to be? I thought. Well, that was years ago. Now, while I still hold many of Rand's ideas of individualism and rational thought to be correct and dear, her ideas of the ideal man, the heroic man, and the Objectivist version of the rational basis for morality have lost favor with me. The problem with her ideas in these areas is that it makes life a trivial, uninteresting, and fairly juvenile matter. At least that's how I see it, and I'd like to convince others of this fact as well. To this end, I have created the "Objectivists Life Scorecard," which, I developed from my extensive reading of Rand and my Carnaby-riffic nature. Here it is:
First, add five points to the OLS for any of the following, any time they occur:
* Stickwick's note: You should get bonus points for fear, but only if you are ravished by a heroically dirty, sweaty quarry worker. Extra bonus points in this scenario if any part of your anatomy is exalted.
UPDATE! I almost forgot. Since this scorecard is for Objectivists, there must be an objective measure of just how good your score is, and this is the whole point of this exercise in the first place. Well... there isn't one. And since we have no objective standard for scorekeeping, the next best thing would be to score the characters in Rand's novels and use them as benchmarks. Now, Howard Roark was obviously Rand's answer to Jesus, so his score, whatever it might be, is plainly unobtainable. John Galt is only slightly lower than Roark, at least by my measure, and yet still achieves an unobtainable score. We can continue this process and find that nearly everyone attains a score better than Ellsworth Toohey, since most of us at least have sex a couple times and probably enjoy it to some degree.
But now, what if one of us were to equal Roark or Galt? What then? What's the grand prize waiting for us behind curtain number three? Hey, it's a pretty great prize, and I know what it is. It's exactly the same prize that all of us get, from the common street thug to Hitler, Stalin, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, all of the Democrats in Congress, Sir Isaac Newton, George Washington, Julius Caesar, Osama bin Laden, Ted Kennedy, George W. Bush, and everyone else. If Ayn Rand is to be believed, we all get, in spite of the tally on our OLS, precisely: NOTHING. Nada. Goose egg. Zip. Squat. Zero. Isn't that swell?
Well, that's the Objectivist's answer, at least an Objectivist who lived by a moral system that was appropriate qua man. That's really dandy of them to say, but really, so what? What the heck for? What a colossal joke. And that is the end of my story.
First, add five points to the OLS for any of the following, any time they occur:
- Proud moments of achievement -> bonus points if this included
- lack of fear
- lack of guilt
- sex
- Sex -> subtract points if this included
- fear*
- guilt
- lack of pleasure
- Suffering for philosophical principle -> bonus points for resolution -> bonus points if suffering or resolution involved sex (see above) -> bonus points if your nemesis was aptly named
- Exalted feelings when observing the following
- planes
- tall buildings
- tits, with bonus points for exalted tits
- Subtract points for any imperfection in the above occasions, such as
- bad breath during sex
- tall buildings that didn't work out so well
- feelings of guilt after the doctor has partially removed the fetus and is about to remove its brains to collapse its skull
* Stickwick's note: You should get bonus points for fear, but only if you are ravished by a heroically dirty, sweaty quarry worker. Extra bonus points in this scenario if any part of your anatomy is exalted.
UPDATE! I almost forgot. Since this scorecard is for Objectivists, there must be an objective measure of just how good your score is, and this is the whole point of this exercise in the first place. Well... there isn't one. And since we have no objective standard for scorekeeping, the next best thing would be to score the characters in Rand's novels and use them as benchmarks. Now, Howard Roark was obviously Rand's answer to Jesus, so his score, whatever it might be, is plainly unobtainable. John Galt is only slightly lower than Roark, at least by my measure, and yet still achieves an unobtainable score. We can continue this process and find that nearly everyone attains a score better than Ellsworth Toohey, since most of us at least have sex a couple times and probably enjoy it to some degree.
But now, what if one of us were to equal Roark or Galt? What then? What's the grand prize waiting for us behind curtain number three? Hey, it's a pretty great prize, and I know what it is. It's exactly the same prize that all of us get, from the common street thug to Hitler, Stalin, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, all of the Democrats in Congress, Sir Isaac Newton, George Washington, Julius Caesar, Osama bin Laden, Ted Kennedy, George W. Bush, and everyone else. If Ayn Rand is to be believed, we all get, in spite of the tally on our OLS, precisely: NOTHING. Nada. Goose egg. Zip. Squat. Zero. Isn't that swell?
Well, that's the Objectivist's answer, at least an Objectivist who lived by a moral system that was appropriate qua man. That's really dandy of them to say, but really, so what? What the heck for? What a colossal joke. And that is the end of my story.
7 Comments:
You crack me up!
Rand's fiction is quite good, and I acknowledge a debt of gratitude to her for The Fountainhead for getting me out of my youthful liberalism. But, as you said, Objectivism ultimately comes up short as a philosophy for life. And as the Senior Fudge points out, the Objectivists have been co-opted by the hard-core humanists. Capitalism Magazine is a good barometer for this. Though it does feature wonderful articles by the likes of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, it started to include an unfortunate number of anti-Christian articles, and one especially vile defense of partial-birth abortion.
I initiated debates with two prominent ARI contributors about their anti-Christian articles (years before I even considered converting), because they were poorly reasoned. One of the contributors was very rude and wrote me off as a religious fanatic so that he wouldn't have to address my questions. The other was civil, but surprised me with his rather simplistic arguments and superficial knowledge of religion and culture -- he was obviously blinded by his prejudices. At this point I realized Objectivism was its own kind of fanatical religion and a philosophical dead-end. I cancelled my financial support of CM, and started going to Townhall.com to get my Sowell fix.
I've only read one Rand novel - Atlas Shrugged, and I was NOT impressed. She's a pretty fair essayist, though.
I concur with the limitedness of her philosphy. One of my favorite Rand-related quotes is by fellow blogger Dipnut of Isn'tapundit: "Perhaps the biggest mistake an intellectual can make is to try to parlay his one brilliant insight into a unified theory of existence. Ayn Rand made this mistake with Objectivism. Objectivism was useful for thinking in certain limited realms, but Rand sought to apply Objectivist thinking to every aspect of the human experience, including love. The result is a sterile philosophical landscape, extending out of sight in all directions.
Tellingly, Rand was unable to live according to her ideals. This is part of
what makes Rand so disagreeable; the almost hysterical denial of subjectivity's inevitable, essential role in our lives. And it makes her not only disagreeable, but wrong."
Accurate, I think.
Anyway, WRT your statement "If Ayn Rand is to be believed, we all get, in spite of the tally on our OLS, precisely: NOTHING. Nada. Goose egg. Zip. Squat. Zero. Isn't that swell?" the same is true for many philosophies, not just hers. (e.g., "The one who dies with the most toys - WINS!") And again, I don't see what the issue is.
A need for a post-existence reward does not imply a post-existence reward - no matter how badly one wants a post-existence reward.
A need for a post-existence reward does not imply a post-existence reward - no matter how badly one wants a post-existence reward.
of course, you are correct. Also, read The Fountainhead. It is far superior to Atlas Shrugged and much more enjoyable too. um.
A need for a post-existence reward does not imply a post-existence reward - no matter how badly one wants a post-existence reward.
However, your need for a moral society based purely on logic implies the possibility simply because you want it so badly. There are mounds of evidence to the contrary, yet you cling to the belief. You are as much a man of faith as Carnaby and me.
As for whether need implies a post-existence reward, why should it not? All of our material needs are met, so why not our spiritual needs? Look at it this way. If nature is all that there is, then evolution is a very strange thing. We humans have evolved to survive materially off of everything that nature provides -- yet 95% of us have been left with the bizarre need to believe in something outside of nature -- something that doesn't exist. Makes no sense.
[And, yes, The Fountainhead is better. Though I did like Atlas Shrugged.]
Ooh! Do we get to beat on this some more? Goody!
Actually, the need for a moral society is real. How we go about inspiring a moral society is the question. Now, I believe we've discussed the moralities of various societies in great depth previously, noting that many societies practiced behaviors that our society today would find abhorrent but that members of those societies found perfectly "moral" and acceptable. What this indicates is that, so long as a significant percentage of a society adheres to a moral "norm" the society can be (but will not necessarily be) stable. Slavery, infanticide, etc. were once moral norms, but are no longer.
You attribute this to religious faith, most recently to protestant Christianity, and I have no disagreement with that, though I've noted that Christianity in general and protestant Christianity in particular has produced some negative consequences of its own from a societal standpoint.
Regardless, the desire is for a system of morals that is stable, self-sustaining, and most advantageous for the greatest proportion of the society. I believe that such a society can be reached through logic, just as you believe that it must (?) be reached through faith.
However, the subject of the post concerned reward for this behavior: "What's the grand prize waiting for us behind curtain number three?" Your method requires such a post-existence reward, mine doesn't. The journey is the reward.
Just my $1.97 - (inflation, you know.) ;-)
What this indicates is that, so long as a significant percentage of a society adheres to a moral "norm" the society can be (but will not necessarily be) stable.
Well, so what? Anyway, a reward at the end certainly doesn't justify moral behavior, what justifies it is a purpose. I can't fathom many things, and one of them is existence in a world understandable only by relative comparison (which is what our world is) but without purpose. To quote Mr. Spock: "Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more?"
Can you really imagine that existence itself, not of you and me neccessarily, but of anything, even a single molecule inside empty space (whatever that is) is really here for no reason? By chance? How is that even remotely possible? How is it that the universe is infinite? I can barely grasp infinity as an abstraction, but here you've got something that really is infinite, just like the progression of the sequence of events that we measure every day by.
So, a purposeless existence is pretty lame. There is no objective measure of good or evil. Someone could torture and murder my kids and deep down I'd have to just say "well, that wasn't really good nor evil, but it sure does make me mad!" BFD.
Actually, the need for a moral society is real.
In the absence of God -- why?
But let's proceed on the assumption that the need exists. We already have a system that works -- Protestant Christianity -- so is the need for a moral society without a belief in God real? Or, as you perceive Christians' need for a post-existence reward, is your need based on your own personal desires and prejudices?
...the desire is for a system of morals that is stable, self-sustaining, and most advantageous for the greatest proportion of the society. I believe that such a society can be reached through logic, just as you believe that it must (?) be reached through faith.
I don't necessarily believe that it must be reached through faith. I look at the evidence of history and observe that the only system to have produced a moral society is one based on faith. I see no reason to mess with success.
The reason I keep hammering on this topic is because I struggle to understand what's going on here. Your belief in a logic-based moral society is supported by absolutely no evidence. In fact, the evidence is very much against it. So the only logical conclusion is that your belief is entirely a matter of faith, which you consider to be irrational. Thus, my confusion. A faith-based system works, so why not just stick with it? Is it because you find faith in a supernatural being to be distasteful? or do you cling to your faith in this logic-based system, because you think the system will be free of fault? If it's the former, your rational system is no more a "need" than my afterlife reward is a need. If it's the latter, you are totally screwed.
Every attempt to have a reason-based society has failed. Everything from the incredibly huge communist experiment in the Soviet Union and China right down to the smallest utopian effort in some out-of-the-way hippy community. It turns out that the genuine science of human behavior, the theory of the relativity of value reactions*, demonstrates that in their innermost nature people cannot be rational. We are motivated by our value reactions to things. Our behavior is determined by our emotions, which are not rational -- they are relative. That's why highly respectable people like the Germans can turn into monsters in WWII, and why you can take the admirable civil rights movement and end up with a nutcase like Kamau Kambon.
What your position requires, Kevin, is a vulcan. You've got a great theory, but wrong species. Humans are Dr. McCoy. Humans are Captain Kirk, who, right in the middle of some important decision is checking out the legs on some female yeoman. The problem is that our perceptions are from a very small perspective. We are very small creatures who can see and comprehend a very little of reality, and on top of that our perceptions are relative.
If you don't believe me, there are two simple experiments you can try. The first is a water experiment. Get two containers and fill one with hot water, the other with very cold water. Run the tap with luke-warm water and then place one hand in the hot water, the other in the cold, and leave them there for several seconds. Then take your hand out of the hot water and put it under the tap -- the luke-warm water will feel cold. Now take your other hand out of the cold water and put it under the tap -- it will feel hot. Which hand would you trust to be objective? The other experiment requires another person and a swivel chair that swivels very easily. Have the person get in the chair and close his eyes, and make sure the room is quiet so there are no auditory clues. Turn him in the chair very fast in one direction for a minute. Have him point in the direction he's spinning. Have him keep pointing as you let go of the spinning chair. The chair will slowly stop spinning, and as it does, the person in the chair will start to point in the opposite direction. As the observer, you can see that he is still (slowly) spinning in the original direction, but his senses tell him that he has reversed direction.
What this demonstrates is that you cannot trust any of your perceptions, because of relativity. Even the most perfectly rational person is screwed, because his perceptions will betray him. If you want proof of this -- how human affairs go awry -- you don't have to go any further than the French Revolution. It tried to be rational, and ended up with the complete opposite.
The journey is the reward.
In the theory of the relativity of value reactions, the unhappy conclusion is that you will experience exactly equal moments of happiness and unhappiness. If the point of the journey is to experience as much happiness as possible, it's doomed. The great religions of this world recognize that this life, in and of itself, is futile. Buddhists say life is futile, so the greatest thing is annihilation -- you stop the cycles of foolishness and cease to exist. Christians recognize the futility of this life, but they believe that it leads to something wonderful in the afterlife. It's a much happier prospect of things, because it provides a greater purpose than just mere pleasure, a purpose for putting up with what is essentially a zero-sum game.
*The theory of the relativity of value reactions is based on the work of D.G. Garan. I highly recommend that you obtain and read his book, The Key to the Sciences of Man.
Post a Comment
Testing ...
<< Home