It doesn't bother me if you decide you are "adjacent to Objectivism"--but don't do it because of these guys. It's like deciding you don't like the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution because of Trump. But he's against those things! (He's currently running down the Declaration's list of charges against George III and trying to do as many of them as possible.)
The problem, as I see it, is that a philosophy of reason doesn't put itself into practice. Believing in reason in theory is one thing. Thinking rationally in practice is another. It requires the discovery and internalization of more detailed premises and the cultivation of certain psychological habits, and the internal culture of the Objectivist movement hasn't explored that practice enough.
And it hasn't always provided good models. There is an unfortunate history of Objectivists (sometimes prominent ones) letting themselves get pushed in one direction based on emotions or sense of life, telling themselves that because they believe in something strongly, it must be "rational," and then coming up with the arguments afterward. This is a natural human temptation, so we shouldn't assume people in our movement would be immune from it.
But someone rationalizing their emotions does not place reason itself in doubt.
Yes, no matter what, I wouldn't abandon a philosophy because of a few people, and I would certainly never abandon my confidence in reason even if I decided that Objectivism isn't _exactly_ my philosophy. So, I appreciate your comment, and I will certainly keep everything you say here in mind.
As I wrote in my post, I've had questions about Objectivism for a while. Until lately, I didn't think those questions were particularly important, at least not in terms of my overall agreement with what I see as the essence of Objectivism. I've never been one to fuss all that much about whether I'm "pure" somehow. And I'm not a philosopher, if by that one means someone who studies philosophy as a vocation as opposed to the extent that is necessary to live one's own life. To put it simply, my understanding had thus far been good enough for me.
But over the last several months, I've discovered that _many_ people who allege to agree with this reality-based philosophy don't actually care all that much about reality. The extent to which I see that happening has surprised me. I thought that understanding Objectivism would inoculate most people against the kind of pure rationalism I've seen across a wide swatch of the "movement" (in quotes, because I'm not sure there is much of one). I've been disabused of that naivety.
Bernstein's statement, though, shocked me in its brutality. Probably, it's akin to what the Grandmother felt in an honest telling of Little Red Riding Hood, when the wolf stripped off his "granddaughter" mask and proceeded to rip her to pieces -- before she became fully aware that it was, in fact, the wolf who was doing the rending. To a lesser degree, I can relate to how she must have felt.
How many wolves are hiding behind the mask of Objectivism? And is there something in Objectivism that attracts them? Because while Bernstein's statement was fully honest and open, I've seen hints of something similar in many others. That's what I need to be sure about before I continue thinking that Objectivism is my philosophy.
I highly recommend Yaron Brook’s podcast for clarifying this kind of thing (or maybe his rules for life series on YouTube). He often talks about people who call themselves objectivists and how it’s easy to come to objectivism when we’re young by a kind of dogmatism rather than by induction about the facts of reality.
Someone called him out in length on Facebook on this, and he posted a retraction and apology for it. He was being emotional and owned up to it. Just for the record.
It is true that his original post was not anything worthy of an Objectivist, and he has admitted this unequivocally.
Yes, I acknowledged that he removed it and apologized. But, as I said, that's not good enough for me. As I also said, it was only the last straw. Also, consider Ayn Rand's position on emotions -- that emotions represent an individual's subconscious integration of their values and their perception of reality. So, if that was his emotional response, then it speaks volumes about someone who has been involved with Objectivism for so long. This was not just some young person lashing out.
I don't know what possessed Bernstein to make such an awful statement, but it wasn't Objectivism. Objectivism does not countenance murder, period.
I'm not a "pure" Objectivist, but I am content to call myself "more or less an Objectivist," and I'm not going to let the pro-Trump faction take the title away from me.
It doesn't bother me if you decide you are "adjacent to Objectivism"--but don't do it because of these guys. It's like deciding you don't like the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution because of Trump. But he's against those things! (He's currently running down the Declaration's list of charges against George III and trying to do as many of them as possible.)
The problem, as I see it, is that a philosophy of reason doesn't put itself into practice. Believing in reason in theory is one thing. Thinking rationally in practice is another. It requires the discovery and internalization of more detailed premises and the cultivation of certain psychological habits, and the internal culture of the Objectivist movement hasn't explored that practice enough.
And it hasn't always provided good models. There is an unfortunate history of Objectivists (sometimes prominent ones) letting themselves get pushed in one direction based on emotions or sense of life, telling themselves that because they believe in something strongly, it must be "rational," and then coming up with the arguments afterward. This is a natural human temptation, so we shouldn't assume people in our movement would be immune from it.
But someone rationalizing their emotions does not place reason itself in doubt.
Yes, no matter what, I wouldn't abandon a philosophy because of a few people, and I would certainly never abandon my confidence in reason even if I decided that Objectivism isn't _exactly_ my philosophy. So, I appreciate your comment, and I will certainly keep everything you say here in mind.
As I wrote in my post, I've had questions about Objectivism for a while. Until lately, I didn't think those questions were particularly important, at least not in terms of my overall agreement with what I see as the essence of Objectivism. I've never been one to fuss all that much about whether I'm "pure" somehow. And I'm not a philosopher, if by that one means someone who studies philosophy as a vocation as opposed to the extent that is necessary to live one's own life. To put it simply, my understanding had thus far been good enough for me.
But over the last several months, I've discovered that _many_ people who allege to agree with this reality-based philosophy don't actually care all that much about reality. The extent to which I see that happening has surprised me. I thought that understanding Objectivism would inoculate most people against the kind of pure rationalism I've seen across a wide swatch of the "movement" (in quotes, because I'm not sure there is much of one). I've been disabused of that naivety.
Bernstein's statement, though, shocked me in its brutality. Probably, it's akin to what the Grandmother felt in an honest telling of Little Red Riding Hood, when the wolf stripped off his "granddaughter" mask and proceeded to rip her to pieces -- before she became fully aware that it was, in fact, the wolf who was doing the rending. To a lesser degree, I can relate to how she must have felt.
How many wolves are hiding behind the mask of Objectivism? And is there something in Objectivism that attracts them? Because while Bernstein's statement was fully honest and open, I've seen hints of something similar in many others. That's what I need to be sure about before I continue thinking that Objectivism is my philosophy.
I highly recommend Yaron Brook’s podcast for clarifying this kind of thing (or maybe his rules for life series on YouTube). He often talks about people who call themselves objectivists and how it’s easy to come to objectivism when we’re young by a kind of dogmatism rather than by induction about the facts of reality.
Someone called him out in length on Facebook on this, and he posted a retraction and apology for it. He was being emotional and owned up to it. Just for the record.
It is true that his original post was not anything worthy of an Objectivist, and he has admitted this unequivocally.
Yes, I acknowledged that he removed it and apologized. But, as I said, that's not good enough for me. As I also said, it was only the last straw. Also, consider Ayn Rand's position on emotions -- that emotions represent an individual's subconscious integration of their values and their perception of reality. So, if that was his emotional response, then it speaks volumes about someone who has been involved with Objectivism for so long. This was not just some young person lashing out.
I don't know what possessed Bernstein to make such an awful statement, but it wasn't Objectivism. Objectivism does not countenance murder, period.
I'm not a "pure" Objectivist, but I am content to call myself "more or less an Objectivist," and I'm not going to let the pro-Trump faction take the title away from me.
I appreciate your thoughts. For now, I’m going to say that my philosophy is adjacent to Objectivism. That’s the best I can come up with at the moment.