These aren't your father's Objectivists

July 22, 2001 2:37 PM

These aren't your father's Objectivists -- they're WACKY! They like wacky rock music! They care for wacky birds! Being Objectivists, they believe themselves to be pundits -- but WACKY ones! I mean, look at these costumes -- these are Objectivists who knows how to have fun!
posted by tweebiscuit (40 comments total)

Golly, it's yet another lame personal homepage! Amazing!

Are we going to be posting links to all lame homepages on the web now, here on MetaFilter's front page, or is this particularly interesting somehow because the people behind it are Objectivists?
posted by dagny at 3:34 PM on July 22, 2001

Oh dagny, you're just upset because those costume pictures make Objectivists look silly and geeky. And everyone knows Objectivists *heart* reason, not silliness..
posted by hincandenza at 3:52 PM on July 22, 2001

I notice these objectivists still embrace the blink tag.

It's traditional values like that that made adolescent right-wing nutters what they are today.
posted by Grangousier at 4:02 PM on July 22, 2001

I just fail to see what's so special about pictures of people who do exactly what they believe in -- having a good time while alive.
posted by dagny at 4:03 PM on July 22, 2001

Reminds me of the South Park episode Office Barbrady learned to read...

"--And finally, I'd like to say that reading totally sucks ass! Yes at first I was happy to be learning how to read, it seemed exciting and magical. But then I read this. "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage and because of this piece of s(beep)t, I'm never reading again! "
posted by benjh at 4:44 PM on July 22, 2001

Come on, guys. There's no need for "here's a link to a site promoting a religion/philosophy/belief system I don't believe in, sprinkled with oh-so-witty snaps against their personal integrity."

I mean, what are we supposed to argue in this thread? "Oh those Objectivists, with all their reason and their selfishness! They're nutty!"
posted by Succa at 4:54 PM on July 22, 2001

When we're done ripping on these people, let's look for some nutty Catholics, vegetarians, NRA members and homeless individuals.
posted by mrbula at 5:40 PM on July 22, 2001

Sounds like fun!
posted by rodii at 5:46 PM on July 22, 2001

And lefties. Can't forget lefties.

FOR THE HUMOR-IMPAIRED: the humor derives from the contrast between their "wacky" personas and the essential joylessness of Objectivism. See? THERE'S YOUR FUNNY!!! GET WIT IT!

You people want too much from your Metafilter. Relax and enjoy the chaos. :)
posted by solistrato at 6:01 PM on July 22, 2001

Thanks, Solistrato. Dorky nerd humor + Objectivism = Amusing irony. I mean, come on, this works for any belief system: "A lot of people think that Christians/Jews/Subgenii/NRA Members/Chainsmokers aren't fun-loving. To prove the opposite, here's some photos of our CLUB BARBEQUE!"

Oh, and incidentally, I think Objectivism is really funny in general. A bit of a personal obsession of mine, really. I'll have to admit -- I think pretty much any joke about Objectivism is funny. (The same goes for a few others as well.) My post was aimed at those who think likewise. Sorry to offend, *cough* Dagny. (Gee, maybe I should change my name to "Buddha." After all, no sense in holding beliefs if you don't wear it stamped on your forehead, right?)
posted by tweebiscuit at 6:12 PM on July 22, 2001

dagny: Keep the faith (no pun intended) (and please let us all know if that is, indeed, your name).

I, for one, am glad to know that there are like-minded people out there who: (a) are Objectivists, (b) enjoy life, (c) relish the thought of building a website (even if some hi-minded MeFi'ers find it lame, what with the blinking tag/s) to promote their beliefs and activities, (d) enjoy a bit of whimsy, and (e) enjoy Halloween as much as I do.

All in all, quite a refreshing website...thanks, tweebiscuit.
posted by davidmsc at 6:27 PM on July 22, 2001

Since we DO have this thread and all...

Objectivists believe in reason, right? Then I'd appreciate it if somebody could give me some reasons to back up this statement (from the ayn rand institute):

Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality... Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

It's the last bit that bothers me most, I suppose. That and the very concrete nature of the statements... fully competent to know ALL facts, rejects ANY, etc.

My question is this: how can you rationally conclude that man's rationality is sufficient to know ALL truth. That's a pretty broad statement.

To me, it's also a bit like a child, unfamiliar with any tools but a metal detector, believing that he can detect ALL buried objects. But maybe I'm missing something?
posted by gd779 at 6:46 PM on July 22, 2001

gd779 -- There's a lot more philosophy necessary to answer that question than we can ever answer here. Even the question of "How can reason give us true knowledge of the exterior world, or even inform us if there is one?" can be completely negated, confused, and turned around. The problem with Objectivists is that most simply aren't informed about the philosophical dynamite they're dealing with, and therefore draw extremely broad and destructive conclusions from faulty evidence and reasoning. In fact, since part of their beliefs is that they are perfectly rational beings, and that any irrational being isn't worth the attention of discussion, any person who disagrees with them is therefore "immoral." It's pernicious and intellectually disgusting.

I don't mean to start a for/vs. Objectivism flamewar here, but that's my opinion as a student of philosophy.

And GD779, your child analogy is quite apt -- Rand's assertion that she had "solved" philosophy is the most ridiculous of all.

And Davidmsc -- oh, I agree that it terrific that they did make the page -- I also just find it amusing for entirely different reasons. Anyone practicing their religion in a joyful was is beautiful.
posted by tweebiscuit at 7:01 PM on July 22, 2001

hm. i'm an objectivist. however, i support "tolerationist poop-heads like Nathaniel Branden" more than pure *cough*hypocritical*cough* ayn rand.

i still find these people funny, largely because they feel like they have so much to prove...

anyway. i'm not here to fight about philosophy. no one changes anyone's mind in a flame war. i just wanted to say that these rabid objectivists are INDEED quite laughable...all you really have to do is look at their website...although they have my thumbs up for having a good time.
posted by lunarennui at 7:08 PM on July 22, 2001

I just thought I should make an appearance in this thread because of the continued use of the word 'wacky'.

Hi.
posted by wackybrit at 7:40 PM on July 22, 2001

Hi, wackybrit.

Anyway, because of all of the references to flame wars, I just want to be clear... my question was not intended as an argument, but as an honest question. I know NOTHING about objectivism, and I'd like to learn your perspective. I gave you my perspective so that you'd have a baseline to argue from. I'm still hoping to get a good explanation.
posted by gd779 at 8:15 PM on July 22, 2001

I was amused by this excerpt from the "Ask Aristotle" page:

Leonard Peikoff, a great philosopher, will never earn the amount of money that Madonna, who, whether one likes her music or not, one must say objectively is a less important and virtuous person than Leonard Peikoff.

I take issue with (a) Peikoff being a great philosopher and (b) Peikoff being more important by Madonna. I think their love for Peikoff made them overestimate his influence. Their overestimation reveals their subjectivity, and thus the hypocrisy of the self-affixed pseudo-philosophical label.

These people seem more like a bunch of Randroids than true lovers of wisdom. This is evidenced by their die-hard support of laissez-faire capitalism. Anyone having taken a freshman econ course, read Adam Smith, or studied history, knows the problems of laissez-faire capitalism.
posted by ktheory at 8:51 PM on July 22, 2001

the essential joylessness of Objectivism

Uh. You've got it pretty much upside-down. Objectivism is about living a joyful, happy, rational life -- as selfish as that might be. And these people seem to be doing just that. Hooray!

The only thing newsworthy here, is that they aren't the world's greatest web designers (yet), and wear fairly lame costumes during some of their themed parties. But that sure goes for a lot of other people too, Objectivist or not. And making fun of all of them would quickly become tiresome -- not to mention tasteless.

Now, let me find that wacky Young Democrats' site I visited last week...
posted by dagny at 1:33 AM on July 23, 2001

Wacky action figures!
posted by dagny at 1:49 AM on July 23, 2001

Fun link, dagny, but at least those people aren't claiming to have a stranglehold on rationality and reason.
posted by hincandenza at 3:47 AM on July 23, 2001

i got ten bucks on the taoist.
posted by clavdivs at 7:04 AM on July 23, 2001

Isn't Hallowe'en, um, a celebration of pagan superstition?

Gotta love it.

(And before you ask, I think "Father Ted" is hilarious. And all the funnier for being accurate.)
posted by holgate at 7:24 AM on July 23, 2001

gd779: tweebiscuit is right about there being too much philosophy to adequately cover via MF. The quote you cited is really just assertion designed to whet the appetite of the reader. It follows the Objectivist (and probably other philosophies as well) tradition of taking a common philosophic dichotomy, rejecting it, and pointing out a third alternative. For example, man can only come to know things through faith OR man cannot know anything -> we can know reality without faith.

There are some crucial distinctions to make in the Objectivist position. To say that nothing is unknowable does not mean that we can know everything. It means that man, when confronted with some aspect of reality, can know it. There are two important pieces of Objectivist context relevant here: that knowledge is hierarchical and contextual. In other words, knowledge depends on previous knowledge and is limited by that previous knowledge. So, there is nothing specifically that I cannot know but there is plenty (and I mean that) that I do not know.

The Objectivist epistemology is much more nuanced than what you might get incidentally from Atlas Shrugged or a website. I'd recommend Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for a better understanding and James Sedgwick's The Certainty Site for a readable, non-technical perspective on her epistemology.
posted by bbrown at 3:15 PM on July 23, 2001

Thank you, bbrown.
posted by gd779 at 3:33 PM on July 23, 2001

You're welcome.

One other thing I'd like to say is that Objectivists, who tend to feel embattled in today's culture and generally alone in their views, also tend to like to form clubs and socialize. I myself have a club at Arizona State University that evinces a similar design motif. (You'd never know that I was a professional Web developer from that site.) That's why you get seemingly-bizarre groups like EGO in the movement.

You also get a lot of nutjobs, too. I could go on and on about the crazy people I've met running my club...but I won't.
posted by bbrown at 3:44 PM on July 23, 2001

bbrown: Corporate logos: my favorite symbols.

Right on!
posted by davidmsc at 4:44 PM on July 23, 2001

Did anyone think to ask Ayn Rand herself what she thinks of this site?
posted by machaus at 6:11 PM on July 23, 2001

Heh, I knew the Forum3000 link wouldn't be long in coming...

I just find Objectivism philosophically untenable, sorry. I'm personally insulted by its members (that is, they personally insult me), I'm intellectually offended by its methods and conclusions, and the mere idea that a philosophical belief system would capitalize itself and start foundations creeps me out in general. In fact, I'm considering entitling my senior thesis "Why Objectivism is Wrong." (No joke.)

There's a reason that Objectivism hasn't been accepted by academia, and it's not "corruption" -- philosophy faculties are some of the most openminded around. It's simply that it's dead wrong.
posted by tweebiscuit at 7:48 PM on July 23, 2001

Objectivism has about the same value as creation "science". These, and $1.30, will buy me a cup of coffee at Starbucks...
posted by hincandenza at 9:42 PM on July 23, 2001

...the mere idea that a philosophical belief system would capitalize itself and start foundations ...

Sorta like all organized religions and political parties, eh? They all do it in order to spread the word.
posted by davidmsc at 3:16 AM on July 24, 2001

Sorta like all organized religions and political parties, eh? They all do it in order to spread the word.

Which is exactly what discredits it as a philosophy. I see you understand my point.

(By "philosophy", by the way, I mean in the strict sense of "philosophically valid," etc., as opposed to "a set of beliefs.") By capitalizing itself, Objectivism has reduced itself to the philosophical validity of a religion. Sorry, guys.
posted by tweebiscuit at 6:23 AM on July 24, 2001

In fact, I'm considering entitling my senior thesis "Why Objectivism is Wrong." (No joke.)

fish in a barrel, meet guy shooting.
posted by dagnyscott at 7:33 AM on July 24, 2001

I'm personally insulted by its members (that is, they personally insult me), I'm intellectually offended by its methods and conclusions, and the mere idea that a philosophical belief system would capitalize itself and start foundations creeps me out in general.

Have you ever considered a live-and-let-live approach? I always pictured Buddhists (which you earlier said you were) as more tolerant of different opinions—i.e., not personally insulted by the existence of adherents.

By the way, Objectivism is capitalized because it is a proper noun, the outright creation of Ayn Rand. When her philosophy started getting popular, people began calling themselves Randists, which she hated. She liked the term existentialism, but it was taken. Objectivism is also a philosophy that lacks the breadth of her system. Foundations exist to disseminate its ideas. For what it's worth, I think you'll find foundations abound for many other philosophies. Your definition of "philosophy" is problematic since there are several definitions and Objectivism fits every one of them.

You really should introspect and find out why you devote so much of your intellectual energy to stamping out, refuting, and demeaning Objectivism. Lest you think that I overstate the case, you mentioned that you were planning on writing your senior thesis on where the philosophy goes wrong.

I am an Objectivist and have been for over 10 years. I have read everything written by its adherents and its detractors. I have taken courses offered by the Ayn Rand Institute. I have integrated it into my life. I honestly think you are selling it short and misrepresenting it, from what little criticism you have presented.
posted by bbrown at 8:28 AM on July 24, 2001

Roark: 'I-a-mean-a no man-a has-a the right to alter-a-my work...."

Wynand: (raymond massey breaks character) "Ring-Ring. Gary, HUAC is one the horn, you forgot your hat."
posted by clavdivs at 10:29 AM on July 24, 2001

friggin-e
posted by clavdivs at 10:31 AM on July 24, 2001

Sorry, I tend to get more vehement than I need to be. I was primarily kidding about the senior thesis -- and don't worry, I've "introspected" a lot about my problems with Objectivism -- my primary objection being that it carries the pretense of being a philosophical system that follows from first principles, while in reality it's about as well established as any religion -- that is, it appeals to people viscerally first, intellectually second. This is a major problem, and a major hypocrisy.
posted by tweebiscuit at 4:13 PM on July 24, 2001

Okay, I'm glad to hear that because your postings gave a different impression.

It definitely does follow from first principles. Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is an attempt to systematically present her philosophy—from metaphysics to ethics and politics. All of the material to accomplish that feat can be found in Ayn Rand's works, but Peikoff bundles it all into one book.

What, exactly, of Objectivism have you read? I really think you're being unfair in your criticism since a cursory reading of Galt's speech from Atlas Shrugged would give a presentation from first principles.
posted by bbrown at 11:06 PM on July 24, 2001

bbrown:

Heavy metal POMO wurd:

You have twice implied,
politely,
and paternally,
that to know Objectivism is to love it,
and that just ain't so.

Please allow that some of us are quite familiar with it, and still consider it a sugary snack from Ms. Rosenbaum's small kitchen.
posted by Opus Dark at 1:27 AM on July 25, 2001

I was addressing myself specifically to tweebiscuit and the points he was making. If you read it in that light, you'll see that I do not imply "that to know Objectivism is to love it." He said that Objectivism is not a philosophy because it does not start from first principles and I wanted to correct that mistake.

I have never thought that people, once exposed to Objectivism, would embrace it. Far from it, I have found that most people viscerally reject it after hearing a few of its premises. The small minority that is the Objectivist crowd attests to the philosophy's unpopularity.

You don't like Objectivism, more power to you. I don't really care. But I do care when the philosophy is rejected out-of-hand for spurious reasons. Better to reject it for valid ones.
posted by bbrown at 1:56 AM on July 25, 2001

one cannot objectify the world, the philiosophy is clap-trap. Its a bumpersticker for centrist ethics.
posted by clavdivs at 7:30 AM on July 25, 2001