It is always nice to come across explanations of Objectivism and Objectivists that is easily understood by the average Joe or Janet. Often time describing Objectivism is left to Objectivist based intellectuals whom might use terms or phrases misunderstood by people. They will often put forth amazingly elegant, but, yet, hard to follow essays on the subject that will be not as acceptable to the general public. However, this article from 2013 by Sunny Lohmann explains things in such a cut and dried way no one can misunderstand it. (Well, unless you intentionally cut off knowledge.)
"Objectivists are, to put it simply, people who have studied Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism, to such a degree that they understand its essentials, have decided the philosophy is true, have attempted to live by it..."
"Objectivism is a closed and complete system of thought, so agreement is actually possible. It’s the same as a person saying, I’ve read and agree with the philosophy of Aristotle, except that it’s Ayn Rand we agree with. What it means to be an Objectivist is that you philosophically understand and accept that reason is your only means of knowledge, and you resolve to honestly use reason and logic to the best of your ability in and for your life. That’s pretty much it. Done. Normal, yet exceptional."
She also takes on misconceptions as well masterfully such as that Objectivism is too dogmatic or that it is too absolute. That one is somehow a snobbish Elitist for being an Objectivist.
Many Objectivists have studied works and thinkers from the entire history of human thought in depth and can compare and contrast the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Rand, and many others. How many of you can do that with your own philosophy? How many of you can even explain your own philosophy top to bottom? We have worked hard to explicitly identify our own philosophy and we’re proud of it. We think we are right and we’ve earned that. Good for us!
If you are walking around thinking you are wrong, then shame on you and go crack some books, preferably Ayn Rand books, because the greatest thing that Ayn Rand gave me, that Objectivism gave me, was total certainty that I am right about all the things that really matter – and the ability to prove it!
She continues in this vein as she puts to rest also like a complete mistress of the digital pen that Objectivists are Cultists that blindly follow anything because Ms. Rand said it.
Since Objectivists regard being rational (objective) as the height of virtue, what you are witnessing is not blind following. What you are witnessing are men with CERTAINTY. We KNOW Ayn Rand was right because we have put it to a rigorous and extensive process of thought, backed up by, and I mean this literally, direct perceptual evidence. Therefore we tend to think our ideas are more obvious and commonsensical than they are. It is as though we can say, “See that rock over there? Therefore, Objectivism is totally correct.” WE understand each step to get from “rock” to “capitalism is the only moral social system,” but we’re probably not always great at recognizing that others don't and so we don't communicate as well as we might.
She points out as well that some people just have a second-handed cultist attitude about any philosophy they have and with life in general.
We may also get a bad rap for this because SOME people have brought their dogmatic mentalities to the application of philosophy, including a philosophy that says you MUST think for yourself and be independent-minded (Objectivism), which is kinda the opposite of blind following. If you ever hear an Objectivist say to you, “It’s true because Ayn Rand said it’s true," you are dealing with one of these types. Back away while making loud noises, and if they still come at you, drop to the floor and play dead.
Her final nail in the coffin of the Objectivist hate-factory is the idea that Objectivism or Objectivists hate charity.
This is by far the number-one most misunderstood thing about Objectivists and Objectivism.If Objectivists are against charity, why is their preeminent organization, The Ayn Rand Institute, a non profit, which functions on, you guessed it, charitable contributions?
Objectivists are not against charity, compassion, generosity or any of those things. What we are against is the idea that your virtue, whether or not you are a good person, rests on ANY of those activities. Can you be a good person on a deserted island? Yes......
Charity etc. is only “bad” in our book if it is a sacrifice of a greater value to a lesser value. We are against human sacrifice (goats are okay). If your wife needs a kidney and you can give her your kidney to save her, but instead you give it to your neighbor, that’s sacrificing your wife to your neighbor. That’s bad. If you want to write a novel and your day job means you can only write on Sundays and you take Sundays to go feed the homeless instead, that’s sacrificing your productive purpose, your long term happiness, to a stranger’s full belly. That’s bad.
Taking care of YOUR life and YOUR values in a rational fashion, since reason is your means of survival, is what it means to be a good person, according to Objectivism.
With that said, if you want to have positive relationships with other people in life, you should probably be compassionate and generous toward your loved ones—to those whom YOU VALUE—and that comes quite naturally for most people. If not, you might be a psychopath, and so probably not an Objectivist"
This is an amazingly well written article about Objectivism and Objectivists. I find it helps put to rest in an understandable way much of the misconceptions and outright lies spread about the philosophy of Objectivism. My hats off to Sunny for doing such a wonderful job presenting the philosophy for what it is and not what people want to make of it. Bravo, Bravo, Bravo!
