 |
Applied Philosophy,
or The Problems with
Objectivsim
I once used the term "Liberals by Default" to describe both the majority
of our society's common men, as well as its intelligensia today. This
is merely a more common version of what I see sometimes among people
who surfacially resemble individualists, but ultimately could not tie
their own shoelaces without help. I run into a lot of people who seem
really into ideas or philosophy, but upon talking to them at length
or getting to know them, I realize that they are actually like little
kids, who have discovered a dirty word, and just spout it off repeatedly
because it impresses people that they can talk dirty, or because it
allows them entry into the "dirty talkers" club, when in fact they don't
even know the definition of their new pet word.
I endeavor to build bridges with just about anyone I see as worthy
in my life. I am able to get along with, admire, and feel strongly for
those who live benevolently, genuinely try to be logical, and operate
upon principle, but with whom I disagree because we haven't seen the
same arguments or been given the same percepts. In such cases, I gain
nothing by "converting" them, or trying to "sell" them on my specific
beliefs. I can, however, still have a very profound intellectual understanding
with them. Once again, if they are worthy of it, and see the same of
me.
But this is also why I prefer to avoid being too explicit about the
sources or refernces to my intellectual premises. Too many people have
written me off as a dogmatist because I can categorize my philosophy,
and because Ayn Rand is such a dubious figure in so many philosophical
circles. Those who aren't immediately given the source of my catch phrases
and call signs would be left to judge my philosophy based upon how well
it matches the way I live my life, and not on how well it matches
"the real Objectivism". If people see contradictions or inconsistencies,
they should be able to define them based upon the former, and thus my
insistence on never allowing myself a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
Therefore, whenever I go into intellectual discussions, I try to keep
Objectivism and Ayn Rand out of it, since using these particular words
can jeopardize an argument, and make it no better than the dogma of
a crusader for many audiences. As much as I belive that the works of
Rand describe my ideal behaviors and philosophy, I do not "follow" those
behaviors and philosophies - I merely agree with them. I'm not a follower
of objectivism, I am an individual whose principles are verbally defined
by a specific philosophy.
As I said, I'm in no way trying to sell people on my
beliefs. However, I insist, when communicating on an intellectual level,
that my peers see where I'm operating from, and I try to be as sure
as possible that I've made myself as clear as possible. With that said,
I must also emphasise that I don't really tend to get along with people
that express an interest in my specific philosophy, anyway. That philosophy
had a very good spokesman, who wrote very articulate, sunny-sounding
stories, which consequently drew in a lot of crybabies in crisis. Thus,
the majority of those who took up such beliefs ultimately turned out
merely to be intrinsicists looking for their version of the Koran.
There are very few worthy minds out there today, and when I find someone
with one, I know it based upon how well they make an argument, how they
live their life, and how well the two match. Buzz words and catch phrases
impress me not. Strength, consistency, and principled morality, however,
impress me more than anything else. To sum it up, I look for individuals
who see the concept of "applied philosophy" as a redundancy - people
who see philosophy as that which is meant to be put to use, 24-hours
per day and all the way down.
Thus, I have managed to maintain good friendships with individuals
that I value immensely, even though none of them really subscribe
to my specific philosophy. I think I know how to judge worthiness, and
it's not based upon shallow concretes, nor on one's "favorite writer"
or "favorite philosopher". Therefore, when judging others, I tend to
ask myself something along the lines of "is this someone I can talk
to, without feeling like I'm talking to a little kid or an Alzheimer's
patient?"
Such an approach to intellectual relationships has convinced me that
most people are intellectually flushable. They are able to coast along
without ever analysing their lives, behaviors, or beliefs, and are perfectly
settled in that fact. The majority of people one encounters live on
the equivalent of a perpetual THC buzz - the majority of those referring
to themselves as "Objectivists" most emphatically included - and they
maintain it by never really having to set foot on the soil of reality
- where philosophy matters, and where the right ideas or the wrong ideas
make a life or death difference.
I don't understand how such evasive, mental amputees survive, and
the fact that they are kept alive by our society frightens me a little,
because I'm happy with reality, and with everything it demands of me.
I refuse to numb myself, and will fight tooth-and-nail any man who says
I must. |
