Now for starters my understanding of objectivist theory stems almost entirely from videogames. Two beautiful games in their own rights and ones I highly suggest anyone track down to try it. I mean I've read more about them since then, but honestly these two really hit in on the head.
One directly in the form of "Bioshock" which shows the potential horrors unhindered Objectivism can create. And one much more esoterically in the original X-Box game "Jade Empire" which I realized (only recently) explains all the potential good I can see in Objectivism.
We'll start with the negative.
Bioshock thrusts you into Rapture. A city at the bottom of the sea which honestly acts as a beautiful example of what a videogame can do. It's also a beautiful and somewhat over the top example of anti-Objectivist propaganda if you're looking for it. In the game they show the most extreme examples of Objectivism gone wrong.
There is a moment where Andrew Ryan (the Antagonist and Symbol of Objectivism gone wrong) Decides to kill the trees, the only source of oxygen in the city, due to a viral copyright violation. It's an extreme version of what Objectivism teaches though it's echoed in Atlas Shrugged (which I haven't read yet) with the Protagonists there burning all they had built in order to keep if from the "Parasites".
"It's mine to do with as I please." Now I believe that people should be allowed to do what they want. However... there's a caveat that I repeat many if not most times. Don't be a dick about it. If you are making millions of dollars in pure profit and there are children starving within the limits of your city, territory, township, or state, then you're being an asshole about it. If you're taking the meat off the plate of somebody else so that you can have more gravy... that's a dick move. I'm not sorry to say it. I believe that people should be compensated for their work. You should be able to do what you want with what is yours... to an extent. Moderation and all that.
Now Bioshock shows us the evil that can very well exist deep within this ideal. And it's not pretty. Selfishness never is. And that's the major problem that I have with Objectivist theory, it allows selfish, self absorbed wastes of skin to justify preying on the weak.
Which brings me to my next point, and my next game.
"Jade Empire"
Bioware game. Has the trademark bioware over simplified morality system. "Do you run down the nuns with a bus, or give treats to the orphans?" But this one, this one does a much better job of creating an interesting and dynamic philosophical framework. It's still possible to be lazily evil or boringly good. (The game also contains one of the most hauntingly beautiful images I have ever seen in the form of what happens to the Water Dragon.)
They divide into "The Way of the Open Palm" the altruistic save the puppies option, and "The Way of the Closed Fist" the drown the elderly option. Now at first glance it's just Mr. White's opinion of ancient Chinese morality boiled down into palatable opposites.
Until you get deeper into the game. There is a quest, only accessible if you are sufficiently down the path of the Closed Fist where you meet and talk with a spirit of a philosopher who followed this selfish path.
He speaks of levels of understanding, and offers this parable to illustrate the point. (Paraphrased)
A man has his wagon stuck in the mud on the side of the road.
An adherent of the Way of the Open Palm wanders by and helps him get the wagon back on the road.
A follower of the Closed Fist will walk on by because she can't be bothered, there's nothing in it for them.
But someone with a deep understanding of the Way of the Closed Fist, they will still walk by. But they will do that out of the understanding that the man with the wagon needs to be strong enough to do it on his own. To help him is to deny him the lesson and the chance to become strong.
That message in the videogame has always remained with me. It hit me at a time when I was shaping my philosophies and made me look at what it is that I believe.
But it also lets me think of Objectivism in a new light. Cause there is a deeper understanding to be found of the philosophy, like so many things in this world there is worth to found in it's understanding. Getting the recognition and not being bothered over things that are nobody else's business or your own property. Those are not bad ideas. Though like every idea they can taken to horrible extremes.
What I propose, and its something that I think I've always believed, is the idea of Benevolent Selfishness.
Selfishness is not, and cannot be, a virtue. In the same way that Gluttony, Lust, and Wrath cannot be virtues. But that being said, they are aspects of our personalities that we should not be ashamed of. We must acknowledge that they are destructive forces, and learn to use them to our advantage.
I believe that true altruism is at best an unattainable ideal and at worst a fallacy. But that doesn't mean that is anathema or the idea is to be something mocked. Cause creating a better world for others is a truly beautiful idea. One that I find myself striving towards with all my heart. I mean I want to devote my life to at risk special needs kindergarteners. You don't make that combination of adjectives your career choice if you're anti-altruism. But altruism is a difficult thing for most. It could be argued by people smarter than me that it's an unnatural construct. I don't disagree or agree. That on is above my paygrade.
What I want to do is propose a compromise. (I'm fond of those) That would allow us to be completely selfish and also work towards the common good. And all it requires is a very simple concession on everybody's part.
Admit we're all interconnected. By our genes. By our technology. By our environment. By our governments. By our religions. By our very proximity. We are interconnected to a staggering degree.
So I'm not asking us to be altruistic. I'm asking you to be selfish.
Selfishly educate our children. So that we don't have to deal with idiots.
Selfishly eradicate poverty so that peoples needs are met enough that we don't have worry about having our things taken.
Selfishly create new and enduring infrastructures so that every person can make use of beautiful parks and natural sites.
Selfishly create new technologies that better the lives of all mankind. Cause we are ALL part of mankind.
Cause if you improve the world you live in, the world you live in improves.
Which means it better... just so we're clear.
((If this creates a discussion on the blog I welcome it. However this is one of those sensitive subjects that can easily end in flames. Keep the discussion civil and on topic. If you don't think you can. Then don't participate.))
Interesting. One must look at other cultures and take examples from them. Objectivism is a very western philosophy, and a very American philosophy even though it was developed by a Russian immigrant and was her response to the Bolshevik Revolution (and Stalinistic Communism that developed after the death of Lenin). That being said the concept of benevolent selfishness isn't contrary to Objectivism, but it's not necessarily practiced by those that hold an Objectivist ideal.
ReplyDeleteI have very real problems with Objectivism, and first and foremost is the idea of putting the self over the community. American's have grit and self determined can do spirit as part of our history. I think a lot of that comes, not from those pioneers that went forward to eck out a living on a piece of land to call their own, but the very real alienation and racist attitudes that are projected on every new crop of immigrants that come to the country. Surely there's a sense of community with in each of those ethnicities and where they settled: Italian American's in the Bronx and New Jersey, Irish American's in Boston and Massachusetts, Asian American's in Southern California and Hawaii, German and Dutch in the Minnesota and Wisconsin, not to mention the descendants of black slaves both in the southern states and the northeast. All of these groups formed tight nit communities, and in order to leave those communities one had to "go at it on their own", and face some very real prejudices (and many still do) when trying to integrate into American society as a whole.
Objectivism seems to have become popular because of two reasons (more, but these two seem prominent in my mind): It gives a reason and the excuse for the alienation of those who are not part of your ethnic group. (While each of those communities are tight-nit, there is definitely animosity for people outside those communities when they enter them to varying degrees). It also goes hand in hand with the concept of The Invisible Hand, which only seems to work when the information is whole, and situation is simple enough to have little to no variable.
Personally I'd like to see a sense of selfishness that envelopes the community. It's not completely contrary to what you're suggesting, but it does extend to acting in a manner that will benefit the most people.
The way I have always interpreted Objectivism (and not many others have, I think, which is why it's so hated) is not as a political platform but as a stage of emotional development that must first be learned and accepted before further development can take place.
ReplyDeleteObjectivism is at its heart about self-knowledge and self-reliance. Those things are absolutely necessary to an individual before that individual can be of use to anyone else. In the same way you can't give away much of your food if you are starving to death, and in the same way you can't give money away to charities if you are struggling to make ends meet: you can't have enough compassion and love for others to truly serve them until you are emotionally self-sustaining.
A lot of fuss is made about how people should be selfless and should serve others in order to be good people, but there is very little spoken about how the self must be nurtured before it has enough to give to anyone else. Disregarding the importance of the cultivation of the self leads directly to the type of people who do service to others in the spirit of martyrdom, who use their own "selfless" behavior to validate themselves (and usually never neglect to let everyone know just how selfless they are). I see this behavior as toxic, and I reject anyone from my life, well-meaning or not, if they possess that attitude.
The truth is, I truly believe, that compassion is a direct result of self-love and self-assurance. The greatest people of the world who truly give themselves to others in service didn't have to be told to do it, or have to be guilted into it. Compassion is the natural consequence of emotional health and inner peace. You cannot be taught how to feel compassion, but you can learn how to build and nourish yourself, and it will have the same effect in the end.
Objectivism is not the end-all be-all of philosophies (no one set of ideas ever is), but it has tremendous potential as a jumping-off point, and as such I don't believe that it has been given the credit it deserves.