After finishing the new Harry Potter book tonight, I decided to log on-line and see what news had happened in the world while I had been absorbed by that fantasy world. Yes, I was absorbed by the new Harry Potter book, reading it in two sittings over two days, even though much of Rowling’s method has grown formulaic. (Well, it’s her formula, anyway. One can almost feel the plot build as it’s building, while knowing that many hints are going by uncomprehended — until the last few chapters and the inevitable rush toward climax and the too-early and too-methodical denouement.)

During my own too-long denouement (after finishing the book), I happened to stumble upon the site of a young objectivist’s weblog via The General’s blog: Oak Tree.

It’s been awhile since I addressed the subject (object?) of objectivism.

My initial thoughts upon reading Oak Tree? Heh:

1. Some of the observations — perhaps quite a few of the observations — are clever, indeed, and humorous.
2. The young author of that blog certainly seems to have thought the observations were particularly witty.
3. The obligatory capitalist, rationalist, anti-liberal conservative pronouncements are sprinkled here and there — and sometimes poured thickly.

I was reminded quite strongly of another objectivist’s weblog I frequently read…and I’m beginning to detect a pattern.

Thought:

Why are objectivist bloggers so insistent about their proclamations?

On the one hand, there is the common admonition, fairly libertarian, against any sort welfare state or welfare condition: If nothing else, Objectivists firmly believe in the power of the individual, even the necessity of individual decision-making, above any sort of authoritarian dictation; on the other hand, Objectivist bloggers seem quite absorbed in their process of dictating the conditions of “objectivism” for those who do not share their perspective(s).

After listing five “causes” of serial killing that were given in English class, the Young Objectivist replies:

Thanks, teach. I’m going to hack a couple families and pick a number between one and five. It’ll be just like lotto, only without the personal responsibility.

So, yes: personal responsibility. Does the Young Objectivist doubt the reader’s personal responsibility for figuring these things out on his own? Is the Young Objectivist therefore inclined to take the reader’s education in hand?

Is the Young Objectivist more concerned about the edification of others than about presenting a peculiar — perhaps, a subjective — statement of personal dicta? (The question will bear heavily in my conclusion!)

Another thought:

Why is the great Objectivist regard for self so damned subjective?

In an entry under the heading “Teaching the Impossible #11,” the Young Objectivist expresses delight over his open confrontation (in class) with multiculturalists:

There’s no better way to liven up a boring class than to raise your hand and ask what’s so good about other peoples’ cultures. I know, I know, it isn’t a good idea to become too active and argumentative. Today was unbearable, so while we were having another dainty chat about some American girl who spoke Spanish with her family to “keep with her cultural roots,” I interrupted the class: “What’s the point? I’m ethnically European, and I don’t care about Europe at all. I never wanted to learn their languages, nor study their culture. Why do people want to do this?”

The Young Objectivist concludes by saying that many children of immigrants “want to be American, not Korean, not Spanish, not Kenyan.” Disregarding for a moment the fact that the Young Objectivist has presented the subjective desires of unnamed individuals as objective proof, one must credit the Young Objectivist’s adherence to the selfish desires of those unnamed and unquantified children — with one proviso. The Young Objectivist hasn’t actually bothered to define the adjective “American.” I suspect that the Young Objectivist has an idea of what is meant by the adjective (most likely a culture much like his own personal or familial culture) and is really arguing for his own self rather than theirs.  I.e., it is a collectivist argument.

Naturally, of course, the liberal multiculturalists are engaged in the same sort of self-extension: they often claim that everyone else must worship the cultural relics and traditions of another group, as they purportedly do. I can understand the Young Objectivist’s distaste for such multiculturalist authoritarianism. The Young Objectivist’s desire to give back, tit for tat, the same argument presented by these multiculturalists seems rather illogical, however.

If a classmate says that she, personally, wants to learn her parents’ culture, why does the Young Objectivist object? (Is it that he would dictate the terms of her relationship with her parents and to her parents’ culture?)

Concluding thoughts:

As I briefly mentioned in another entry,

logic and reason are good things to have, but so often the individual using logic isn’t the best person to evaluate the soundness of that logic.

This is one of the primary arguments I have against Objectivism as it is currently promulgated. Too often, Objectivists seem to attempt to bypass rational thought by falling into rote recitation: Capitalism! Rationality! Stupid Liberals! Multiculturalists! and the list goes on. Just as often, Objectivists seem too quick to throw Ayn Rand into the argument, or some other “well-established” Objectivist thinker. At worst, these are shortcuts to thought; at best, they are code words meant to express a wealth of meaning, like that code word “American,” or they are recitations of a higher authority which Objectivists have adopted rather than use their own capacity for rational thought — most likely because they do not trust their own words to carry the day.

Objectively speaking, any person born in America is already an American, whatever language or style of dress or religious ceremony is chosen by that person; but this concept doesn’t appear to be on the Young Objectivist’s radar.

Too often, Objectivists seem quite incapable of separating objective realities from subjective impressions (or subjective desires!).

Why are Objectivists so concerned that their objectivism should be shared? Can objectivism be shared and remain objectivism? If a person’s individual capacity to think rationally and objectively is the cornerstone of Objectivist theory, why are Objectivists

1. quite convinced that vast numbers of humans are incapable of figuring out the objective truth unless
2. nanny-thinkers are there to guide, cajole, or coerce them into following the “proper” path?

I am beginning to think that the authentic Objectivist would tend to his own affairs, delivering up explanations of his M.O. only when asked — if it served his purposes.

I am also beginning to think that the conflict between rational thought and subjective desires leads many an Objectivist to a persuasive illusion.

Which comes first, the satisfaction of selfish desires or rational thought? The answer will answer for the type of “Objectivist” in question.