From: amarcin@athena.mit.edu (Bret Aarden)
Subject: Obj. Philosophy
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 09:54:53 GMT

Let me preface this by saying that I'm very pleased this group has
formed, especially since I've only been studying Objectivism for a few
months. It's good to hear from some people who share my attitudes!
 
There's been a lot of talk about the political aspects of Objectivism,
but I'd love to hear some more about the philosophical facets.
Although I have been gradually swayed by the arguments of Libertarians
and their ilk, it was the concept of rationality as the basis for a
philosophy that grabbed me by the neck, shook me around and screamed,
"You've been thinking this all along and you know it, you just haven't
had the guts to stand up for yourself!" --I was glad for it.
 
Powerful though this idea may be, I think some people in their zest
for idealism tend to carry it to extremes. ...What axioms does
Objectivism postulate as being proper? None! Axioms are axioms! Reason
is the logical interpretation of experience, but you can't take it any
deeper than experience.
 
If you're looking for axioms, look to what you have observed or what
you know others have observed (and don't just take their word for it).
The greatest strength of Objectivism is its tolerance of different
sets of axioms. An objectivist philanthropist can live hand-in-hand
with his neighbor, Mr. Miser Objectivist, and all will be happy so
long as they respect each others' rights (to life, freedom of
exchange, and ownership).
 
Unfortunately, Rand herself subverted this important concept by
declaring that only her own axioms were valid because she had founded
Objectivism. (Her biography by Barbara Branden gives some vivid
accounts of the horrors of this brand of totalitarianism.)
 
Reason is a powerful tool for weeding out mutual contradictions in
axioms, but you can't take it much deeper than that. Once you have
your axioms, it is possible to carefully construct a framework of
logically consistent principles and guidelines for living your life --
and this is the real power of a rational philosophy. Naturally, these
principles are mere theoretical constructs and a great deal of effort
must be put into: first, using reality as an error-correction feedback
source; and second, training yourself to follow these guidelines
instinctively.
 
This is my interpretation of Rand's ideas. I think she was completely
off-base in her treatment of emotions; my hypothesis is that it was an
intellectual defense mechanism to maintain her ties to sanity. You
don't need to understand all of your motivations to be healthy, but in
my estimation it is useful to understand your capacity to change your
emotions and instincts. Can you derive positive results from those
changes? I think I have; I feel happier and more stable than I ever
have before.
 
I spent an evening with a friend arguing with someone who had spent
years studying yoga and meditation, until we realized we were agreeing
with each other. It makes me think that Objectivism is simply another
path to spiritual happiness.
 
What do the rest of you think? How does this relate to your own
experiences?
 
-Bret Aarden.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism