Objectivism

I've been a customer of Audible.com for almost 8 years. One of the really nice things about it is I can get through some really long books that I wouldn't get through if I had to read them. I like to read, but I am a little impatient. In fact, since I pay a fixed amount every month, and get to pick 2 book, I tend to pick books that are long, so I get my money's worth.

So about 5 years ago, I listend to Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. It was a good book, but it didn't change my life. But over the next couple years, I would often hear references to Howard Rourke, who is the protaganist of The Fountainhead. It was usually in the context of someone who was without comprimise. But I'm not usually very good at understanding symbolism. I often find myself wishing Iwas in a book club, or some other sort of forum, so I should know what I'm supposed to make of things. Same with art.

And with The Fountainhead, I didn't really understand the full meaning, and I kept running into more references. So when I was looking for a new book a few months ago, I ran into a 20 hour lecture series about Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I took an Intro to Classic Greek Philosophy at Milwaukee Area Technical College, from a professor that gave takehome tests, and then gave all of the answeres before they had to be turned in. So I didn't learn a lot. But I did like the stories, and the hypothetical situations. I've tried to read some other stuff on philosophy, like The Dream of Reason: A History of Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance. But most of it was historic, and not that actionable.

I do like philosophy. I don't feel like I have a good book-understanding of it, but that doesn't mean I don't have philosophy. I mean, we all have philosophy. We have the rules we live by, the principles we let guide us. Ok, I wanted to say something profound here, but you know what I mean, and I'm getting sidetracked. So back to Ayn Rand.

Listening to this 20 hour lecture series about Objectivism started pretty tediously. Lots of basic axioms, and very abstract issues that she uses to build the rest of the philosophy. But nothing that I disagree with. Then it starts getting to "what does it mean to be an Objectivist?", I tried to find the quote that really caught my attention, but it's escaping me right now. The jist of it was, "If you behave in ways that are contrary to what you know to be true, you are deluding yourself, and in at least a small way, immoral. " At some point I'll find her way of saying it, but this was huge to me.

It's an idea that I have adopted in some ways, and I get really frustrated when I go against it. I'm a Vegan, and a Liberal, and a Democrat. I have to admit I haven't finished the lectures, but I've read ahead a bit, and I know that one of her ideas are complete Laissez Faire Capitalism, and I don't think I'm going to go all the way with her there.

But I know where meat comes from. I can't pretend that the hamburger wasn't a cow, that it didn't have eyes, and didn't feel pain. And that we can continue to eat this way. I know a lot of other people who were vegetarians. I have talked to people about being a vegan, and when they say the see what I'm saying, but "well, I just don't care enough to make a change," it drives me crazy. How can we expect to be moral, when we continue to do what we know to be wrong?

Tune in next time to see what this has to do with the price of tea in China.