The Underlying Cause

In some ways this post may be out of order in the train of thought which I hope to develop. However, the arguments presented in the following posts regarding the ‘symptoms’ may be illuminated if one keeps this ‘underlying cause’ in mind throughout. Additionally, I hope the preliminary presentation of these ideas now will make them easier to support in the future.

The underlying problem with current ‘objectivist’ thought is simply this: ‘objectivists’ see their philosophy as an ends in itself rather than a means to reach a goal.

I believe objectivists are so caught up in decrying irrational behavior that they have forgotten what the purpose of rational behavior is. Without a consideration of overall purpose ‘objectivists’ become lost. They begin to haggle over the letter of the philosophy without consideration of the outcome of that philosophy. They become chronically short-sighted and disparage any attempt to examine the outcomes of their actions. ‘Objectivists’ soon fall into the same absolutist trappings which doomed communism and could as efficiently doom capitalism.

So, the question naturally becomes: what is the purpose of objectivism? For me the answer is simple yet grandiose: Objectivism is a means to ensure my own happiness and simultaneously an effective way to encourage the long term survival of humanity.

This purpose for objectivism obviously requires elaboration, but when it is accepted it instantly provides an overarching guidance of which current ‘objectivist’ thought is in dire need. The result of this overarching purpose is a weakening of the ‘Word’ of objectivism and a strengthening of the importance of the results. The objectivist “party line” is no longer sacred. Objectivism becomes an effective tool for reaching the goal of happiness and long term human survival, but as soon as ‘objectivism’ begins to hinder happiness and long term human survival it can be ignored.

Objections to ‘Objectivism’: an Introduction

The last posting, ‘True Objectivism,’ inspired several comments to which I will respond in the following posts. I appreciate these comments by T and Manny and I genuinely hope they are only the first in a continuing discussion. However, not surprisingly, I don’t agree with everything that was said. I have spent significant time formulating my responses and I hope they will serve to advance the debate.

My objections to some of what was said, and for that matter my concerns regarding prevalent ‘objectivist’ thought in general, can be addressed on two levels. The first level is simply a discussion of the specifics of what I believe an ideal ‘true objectivist’ viewpoint would entail. The second level is a more broad discussion of the purpose and value of objectivism in general. It is helpful to separate my concerns into these two categories because in many ways the categories represent first the symptoms and second the underlying cause of everything I believe to be wrong with ‘objectivism’s’ current direction.

A discussion of the symptoms of ‘objectivism’s’ misdirection is one that could last indefinitely. These symptoms include both the mistrust of environmentalism and the support of aggressive government policy which, as mentioned, are routinely expressed in the ‘objectivist’ party line. I plan to address these issues, and taking the time to carefully examine these symptoms may produce some improvement in thinking, but at some point the underlying cause must also be addressed or progress will become stalled. I hope that this examination of the underling cause of ‘objectivism’s’ problems will show true objectivism as a tool toward progress rather than a goal in itself. And by viewing objectivism as a means rather than an ends I hope ‘objectivism’s’ direction may be corrected.

In the coming weeks I will attempt to elaborate my views on both ‘objectivism’s’ symptomatic problems and the shift in thinking which is necessary to avoid recurrence of these problems in the future. I sincerely hope comments on this task are added as often as possible.