I like to compare the reading process to the workings of a kaleidoscope, or let’s say that reading is simply a kaleidoscopic process, whereby, motion, which represents the foreign ideas absorbed through reading, is breathed into the different colors that represent our otherwise dormant ideas, shuffling, and changing them, putting out some, while toning up others; the reader is that central point around which this whole constellation of colors seem to revolve, and on which they seem to depend.
The more consistent those previously held views with what they’re reading, the brighter those colors get; analogously, the more receptive they are to those ideas — the more entrenched, and the more “objective” this view will seem to them, and subsequently, the harder to dislodge them.
By Objective, I am not referring to what’s known and understood as Objective reality, But about Objectivism, the method; the way we judge what we see.
Objectivism as it’s scholarly known, is a philosophical system popularized by Russian American writer Ayn Rand, who defined it as a moral code in which man “must lead by the independent judgment of his own mind” as she put it in an interview by Mike Wallace whose link you’ll find below.
Now, I am not going to pretend that there are no apparent contradictions in Rand’s definition, nor will I suggest that Rand’s definition is accurate, instead, I’m going to try to understand her objectivism in terms of the triad of definition, means, and end, that is, to understand it in terms of its utility.
The reasoning method I’m following here to unravel Rand’s objectivism is a deductive system (more like a phenomenon) known as syllogism; a deductive pattern of reasoning in which the conclusion (definition) is derived from two existing premises (means & end). This method is great if you’re dealing with (as we do most of the time) utilitarian concepts. Careful with ‘utilitarian’ here, might not be remotely what you’re thinking.
According to Rand, objectivism is a philosophy based on ‘objective reality’ (a problematic concept), and the means by which this objective reality is achieved is through what she called ‘rational morality’ (means), and this rational morality, in turn, will help us achieve happiness (our ends).
I’m not going to say that Ayn rand is wrong, as doing so will contradict, and defeat the point that I’m trying to make. Saying that Rand’s wrong is no more relevant than saying that she’s right.
Firstly, there’s no criterion on the basis of which I could hold either stance, as doing so would imply that there’s an ‘objective’ view out there that is inconsistent with Rand’s particular view, and such a criterion does not exist, because objectivity does not.
Rather, the assertion that Rand’s wrong opens up more holes than we’re trying to fill out. To say Rand’s wrong is to say that your worldview is different, nothing more.
In ‘the Republic’ Plato uses the word ‘philosopher’ as a synonym for ‘virtue’ and ‘good’, and ‘wisdom’. Whatever these things mean to you — However you define ‘good’, ‘wisdom’ and ‘virtue’, is the raw material so to speak, with which you shape up and mold your version of Plato’s philosopher, and what comes out by the time you reach the back cover of ‘the republic’ will be nothing like what Plato had in mind when he wrote the dialogue.
Besides. Being acquainted with Rand’s objectivism, and suddenly finding yourself in disagreement, means that you must already be in possession of something equivalent, how else could you find yourself in disagreement?.
But as far as Rand’s definition, means and end, what are Yours?, how are you going to realize your own objectivism? What is the conflict which your objectivism will help solve?, and whose solution will it bring conflict to?.
