objectivism sucks (the life out of you)
this is part of a letter i wrote recently
Cynics are good for a couple of things—desecrating beauty, and stumbling around looking for wisdom that they’ll never find because it’s sitting on their doorstep. Reason can disassemble beauty in a way, and you have let your mind do it. However, the beauty has not changed, you’ve simply screwed your eyes shut to have a more logical universe around you—darkness and purposelessness are most logical.
As for Objectivism, I think the best rebuttal is CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce. Self-centeredness leads to the implosion of personality. A person concerned only with expressing his or her own self has no capacity for joy (which is ecstatic, outside of self), no capacity for discerning beauty (which is always other), and no capacity for intimacy (which demands an orientation into the other).
In The Fountainhead, the protagonist (Roark) is an ideal of Objectivism. He is a man who lives only to create the buildings in his mind. People hate him because he refuses to compromise. People also simply avoid him, because he is a non-person; his personality is consumed within himself, and he has no capacity for simple friendship. Rand tries to pain a picture of friendship and romance for him, but it reads shallow to me. He makes a couple of friends that are semi-ideals of Objectivism, and a romance flares with an Objectivist in the fires of being perfected. Roark and his “lover” do not love each other. Often, their feelings are more of spite or even hatred, but they love themselves within the other. They bask in their own beauty as reflected by the other. This is not intimacy.
I think it’s a very simple case to prove that we are inadequate in and of ourselves. To live a life based on self-worship is a life devoted to increasing inadequacy—what is logical about that?
The greatest human urges are left completely unfilled in an Objectivist lifestyle. Honestly, I doubt anyone has ever lived that lifestyle. Rand’s forward to The Fountainhead expresses sincere gratitude to her husband, a task that is wholly non-Objectivist. She expresses her reliance upon him as an other to help her be and write to her greatest potential. This is certainly more than loving her own reflection in her husband. She was loving that part of him that was wholly distinct, the otherness of him. Love is impossible without distinction.
Cynics are good for a couple of things—desecrating beauty, and stumbling around looking for wisdom that they’ll never find because it’s sitting on their doorstep. Reason can disassemble beauty in a way, and you have let your mind do it. However, the beauty has not changed, you’ve simply screwed your eyes shut to have a more logical universe around you—darkness and purposelessness are most logical.
As for Objectivism, I think the best rebuttal is CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce. Self-centeredness leads to the implosion of personality. A person concerned only with expressing his or her own self has no capacity for joy (which is ecstatic, outside of self), no capacity for discerning beauty (which is always other), and no capacity for intimacy (which demands an orientation into the other).
In The Fountainhead, the protagonist (Roark) is an ideal of Objectivism. He is a man who lives only to create the buildings in his mind. People hate him because he refuses to compromise. People also simply avoid him, because he is a non-person; his personality is consumed within himself, and he has no capacity for simple friendship. Rand tries to pain a picture of friendship and romance for him, but it reads shallow to me. He makes a couple of friends that are semi-ideals of Objectivism, and a romance flares with an Objectivist in the fires of being perfected. Roark and his “lover” do not love each other. Often, their feelings are more of spite or even hatred, but they love themselves within the other. They bask in their own beauty as reflected by the other. This is not intimacy.
I think it’s a very simple case to prove that we are inadequate in and of ourselves. To live a life based on self-worship is a life devoted to increasing inadequacy—what is logical about that?
The greatest human urges are left completely unfilled in an Objectivist lifestyle. Honestly, I doubt anyone has ever lived that lifestyle. Rand’s forward to The Fountainhead expresses sincere gratitude to her husband, a task that is wholly non-Objectivist. She expresses her reliance upon him as an other to help her be and write to her greatest potential. This is certainly more than loving her own reflection in her husband. She was loving that part of him that was wholly distinct, the otherness of him. Love is impossible without distinction.
posted by Unknown @ 8:09 AM
2 Comments:
At 12:56 AM,
Anonymous said…
Cynics are good for a couple of things—desecrating beauty, and stumbling around looking for wisdom that they’ll never find because it’s sitting on their doorstep. Reason can disassemble beauty in a way, and you have let your mind do it. However, the beauty has not changed, you’ve simply screwed your eyes shut to have a more logical universe around you—darkness and purposelessness are most logical. "
What does cynicism have to do with Objectivism?
How is your comment about "darkness" and "purposelessness" anything other than arbitrary? What definition of "logical" are you using that makes this statement not complete nonsense?
"Self-centeredness leads to the implosion of personality. A person concerned only with expressing his or her own self has no capacity for joy (which is ecstatic, outside of self), no capacity for discerning beauty (which is always other), and no capacity for intimacy (which demands an orientation into the other). "
Care to support these claims?As well as your strange definitions of "joy",and beauty.
Roark and his “lover” do not love each other. Often, their feelings are more of spite or even hatred, but they love themselves within the other. They bask in their own beauty as reflected by the other. This is not intimacy. "
Why do you say they arent in love? What do you think love is? What do you think intimacy is?
"I think it’s a very simple case to prove that we are inadequate in and of ourselves. To live a life based on self-worship is a life devoted to increasing inadequacy—what is logical about that? "
Why do you think self interest leads to "inadequecy"?Id like to hear your "case".
"The greatest human urges are left completely unfilled in an Objectivist lifestyle. Honestly, I doubt anyone has ever lived that lifestyle. Rand’s forward to The Fountainhead expresses sincere gratitude to her husband, a task that is wholly non-Objectivist. She expresses her reliance upon him as an other to help her be and write to her greatest potential. This is certainly more than loving her own reflection in her husband. She was loving that part of him that was wholly distinct, the otherness of him. Love is impossible without distinction. "
What are "the greatest human needs"?
Where did you get the idea gratitude was "non-objectivist"?
What on earth does "distinction" have to do with love?
At 5:25 PM,
Unknown said…
hello Anon:
this is a really old post, and the comment went to an old email address.
If you come back to this (don't know how you found it in the first place), and are interested in dialogue on the questions you asked, send me an email at mattdegier [at] gmail [dot] com
ciao.
Post a Comment
<< Home