Objective: Objectivism - What's it got to do with objects?

Given that I know a lot of people in my part of the world aren't terribly familiar with Ayn Rand, I'm going to kick off this series with a brief sketch of her basic ideas. With this post, I'm focussing on the bits where I agree with Rand, which are mainly on the metaphysical/abstract side. We need to start by putting Rand in her historical/philosophical context

Rand called her philosophy 'objectivism', which may sound like a buzzword, but it does mean something and it's actually a pretty well-chosen label (much better than, say, neomodernism >.>). In philosophy, if something is 'objective' then it's not dependent on human beings - this is simplifying a bit, but bear with me. Rand's philosophy is a reaction against various kinds of subjectivism which were prevalent, particularly in Europe, during her lifetime. Among these kinds were postmodern relativism and existentialism, if you're interested.

The mid-20th-century subjectivisms all involved some sort of belief that the world we commonly experience is not objective - that in some way, it depends on human beings or human consciousness. The subjectivists had various reasons for this, all of which are complicated and obscure (if you really want to know, I'll send you a copy of my PhD thesis when it's done; most of my research is into a couple of progenitors of modern subjectivism). The upshot of this kind of subjectivism is the theoretical possibility of changing the world by changing the way you think about it.

Rand was dead set against this (her hatred of Kant can be traced to pretty much exactly this point). Her objectivism asserts that the world is as it is and no mere thought can change it. Rand believed that attempts to do this were at the root of the socialist mind-set, because socialism, she thought, was out of touch with reality.

Sidebar: Rand was in the bad habit of referring to this fundamental premise with Aristotle's formulation of the law of identity, 'A is A'. She never formally studied philosophy, and as a result seems to have rather got the wrong end of the stick on 'A is A' - the law of identity is a logical tool only, and pretty much trivial most of the time. Rand's point is good, but her invocation of Aristotle is not, and it set my philosophy-grad-student teeth grinding right through John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged.

Anyway, to all intents and purposes, I agree with Rand that there is an objective reality which we can't change by power of thought (and, hard as it may be to believe, lots of academics have disagreed, some with pretty good reasons). Rand says that the purpose of thought is not to change reality, but to understand it and learn how it may be changed.

Thought - rational thought - is the defining activity of the human species, according to Rand (and even given the growing body of evidence about the higher mental faculties in other species, the human capacity to reason remains unique at least in degree). Rand and I disagree about the role of emotion in thought, but that's a debate for another time.

If, as Aristotle said, man is a rational animal, then our ultimate fulfilment should come from the correct use of reason. That is to say, a good human being is one who approaches and solves all his problems through the use of reason, and said good human being will take his highest pleasures from doing so. It may sound a little implausible, but remember we're only talking about highest pleasure; other stuff can still be pleasant, it's just that the most pleasant experiences will be those in which a pleasant object is approached rationally. For example, Rand thinks that the highest musical pleasure comes from listening to music whose driving concepts one grasps and agrees with, as well as liking the sound (I won't get into her slightly distasteful views on sex).

There's another important consequence of the twin objectivist premises of objectivity and rationality, and it's a moral one; if human beings are definitively rational creatures, there is a moral obligation on us to be rational. It is immoral, Rand thinks, to lose oneself in irrational sentiment or waste time on unearned emotion. It's an austere, ascetic position rather at odds with Rand's own life story, but there's a grain of truth in it, and it lends her system a symmetrical beauty; rationality is in our best interests, and rationality is a moral obligation. It's an alignment of the practical and the principled which is a feature of all the best anti-subjectivism (because if there is an objective reality, principles derived from it will always be practical).

In summation, then, Rand argues:
1> There is an objective reality, independent of human beings
2> Human beings are inherently rational (for some appropriate definition of 'rational')
3> It is in our best interests to be rational, because this will best equip us to master objective reality
4> There is a moral obligation on us not to suppress our rationality, which stems from <2>

The conclusion of this argument is that we should be left as free as possible to engage in rational activity, which is where her small-government libertarianism kicks in (I gather she hated to be called a libertarian, but if the shoe fits...). There are all sorts of practical - and some theoretical - problems with that half of Rand's philosophy, but this 'first' or fundamental half is actually pretty plausible and systematic. I'll get into the particular problems I want to highlight over the coming months, but I needed to write this first so I've got it here to refer back to.

Your feedback is welcome - do you agree with my reading of Rand's philosophy? It's based mainly on Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged, and I haven't read any of her non-fiction.

PS. I realise I haven't actually explained what it's all got to do with objects; but then neither did Rand, so I blame her.

Objective Objectivism: Why now?

So, as I've mentioned in passing but not explained in any depth, my next novel, 'The Earth Trembles' (currently in pre-production), is an attempt to write a left-wing response to 'Atlas Shrugged'. This is an introductory post on the subject, and for now I want to focus on why I'm doing this now, and why it's important to do it at all.

I'm in the strange position with this project of being a British author writing about an American icon. Ayn Rand is barely-known over here, and generally regarded (where she's known at all) as a total lunatic with no good ideas. In America, by contrast, there are still a huge number of people who regard her as one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. It's a little trite, but of course the truth lies somewhere in between.

Having read two biographies of Rand (of which more in a moment) and three of her four novels, I've come to the realisation that certain elements of American culture which seem incomprehensible to many Europeans can only properly be understood if you get a grip of Rand's work. In particular, it's only possible to understand the Tea Party phenomenon - a phenomenon regarded with a mix of derision and fear in this country - if you understand the influence Rand has had on the Jeffersonian/libertarian streak in American political thought.

I'm going to take a moment's digression and recommend to everyone even faintly interested in contemporary American politics, or Rand and objectivism, or even 20th-century history in general, to read Anne C. Heller's 'Ayn Rand and the World She Made' and Jennifer Burns' 'Goddess of the Market'. Heller's book is one of the finest biographies I've ever read in terms of making her subject feel a real person while still capturing the intense high drama of Rand's life; Burns' book is more about the political history of Rand's oeuvre, but does a fab job of explaining all those bits of American culture which seem so strange to a European. Both books hold up very clear mirrors to objectivism, relatively free of bias but not shrinking from criticism where appropriate.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that Rand's ideas have been hugely influential, and with a US election next year which is likely to be dominated on one side by Tea Party-style voices for vigorous economic libertarianism, they seem to be on the rise again. I can't remember where I saw the stat, but I think I remember reading that sales of Atlas Shrugged are on something like a 20-year high. There's also recently been a film version of the first part of the book, so clearly some people think it's time for a fresh look at Rand.

I'd be dishonest to pretend that I wasn't hoping to turn some of that renewed interest into marketing opportunities and sales, but I don't see anything particularly unethical about doing so (and Rand would certainly approve the opportunism). However, my main intention is to use Rand's ideas to frame my own arguments on the subject of sociopolitical ethics.

That may sound rather grandiose, but it's just a posh way of saying I have some ideas of my own that I want to put out there. I certainly don't agree with Rand on a lot of things, but some of her ideas about the nature of human beings are very appealing to me. My criticism of Rand's arguments, I hope, will bring out the good in them as well as throwing out the bad.

'The Earth Trembles' isn't going to be a blanket statement of my entire philosophy, or even the socioeconomic part of it. What I want to do is make an argument which starts from the points I agree with Rand on, and highlights several places where I think the conclusions she reaches from her premises are amiss. For example, I agree with Rand that it is defining of mankind that we are in her sense 'rational', but I don't agree with her that it follows from this that we should never help each other (in the interests of keeping this post short, I'll argue this point another time; bear with me).

Anyway, there's never been a better time to know about Ayn Rand and to give her resurgent ideas (or at least, the Tea Party-mangled version thereof; there are certainly some Tea Party ideals which I'm sure Rand would never have countenanced) a thorough going-over. I hope you'll follow my journey, and please feel free to challenge anything I say with which you don't agree.