|
What has prompted me to get into the issue of how
certain traditions may be compatible with Objectivism is my belief that
Objectivism is a philosophy for the real world, not utopia. Maybe it's
the manufacturer in me, but I like to figure out how things really work.
Hence, my interest in figuring out how Objectivism really works in the
real world.
When I speak of the value of tradition, the context
for that value is the world as it is, not as it ought to be. Even in an
ideal Objectivist society, I cannot imagine how traditions would not
develop to convey its principles. It is human nature to package valuable
lessons with ritual, so that through form we can be reminded of
substance. So, a tradition is rationally valued for its substance and the
efficiency of its form in communicating that substance.
Of course, adherence to any particular tradition can become irrational. A
tradition that becomes hollow, either because its lesson is no longer
relevant or because a fetish is made of its form, is one that should be
discarded or altered to new circumstances. Reason is the only watchdog we
have to alert us to dysfunctional traditions. Yet, reason sometimes fails
us in this regard because we almost always adopt traditions through the
institutions we belong to: Family, church, clan, school, club, business,
etc. Peer pressure and acquiescence to authority sometimes overwhelm
reason.
Rand has an answer to this problem: Think! Think for yourself!
Moreover, Rand has laid out a roadmap for where such thinking might lead a
person. Her ethics lay out the core principles for a moral life, and her
politics specify the boundaries of a society founded upon her ethics. Her
philosophy puts forth a framework for these principles and boundaries, so
we know what they are and their relationship to each other. But this
framework by its nature is a naked thing. Rand did not flesh it out for
us. Perhaps that’s because we should think! Think for ourselves!
If Objectivist ethics derive from what is true of human nature
rather than dictate what that nature ought to be, then we should be able
to discover Objectivist ethical principles in the successful things human
beings do. In other words, Objectivist ethics are not simply rules
Rand devised for the good life; they are her discovery of the ethical
principles that realize the fullness of human nature. You cannot discover
what does not exist. Therefore, Objectivist ethics must underlie human
progress; they must have been the warp and woof of human success before
Rand explicitly identified them.
So we should find Objectivist ethical principles embodied in human
traditions. Furthermore, we should find Objectivist political principles
at work in the institutions that preserve these particular traditions.
Obviously, prior to Rand, people did not learn these things as part of an
integrated system of knowledge – as Objectivism. Nevertheless, these
traditions and institutions worked to preserve the principles that have
driven human beings to excel throughout history. They are the flesh of
Rand’s ethical and political framework.
It is understandable that Rand did not hang much of the particulars of the
human condition, such as history and language and culture, upon her
framework. That framework alone is a lifetime’s achievement. Fleshing it
out with the rational traditions and institutions of the human experience
is another work of a lifetime. So, I do not denigrate Rand’s achievement
because it isn’t complete. But recognizing Objectivism’s incompleteness
is critical to avoiding the conclusion that the bare bones of the
framework she built is all there need be to understand oneself and
society.
To believe that her framework for Objectivist ethics and politics, by its
nature devoid of the particulars of history and language and culture that
root each of us in the real world, is the finished product is to deny the
reality of the connections each and every person has to others who are in
fact his teachers. Thus, the rootless man becomes the ideal man, for
Rand’s framework (if its incomplete nature is not recognized) can bear the
weight of no other conception of a human being. The rootless man is also
the atomized individual, who risks becoming a slave to his appetites.
I’ll spare you, my friends, any further prolixity. I’ll conclude with the
hope that you all understand that I raised this topic not in the defense
of traditionalism – i.e., the irrational adherence to form – but in the
defense of tradition – i.e., the rational preservation of the principles
of progress.
William Tingley is a manufacturer in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, and a Roman Catholic well versed in the ideas of Objectivism. He
is a contributor to The Autonomist's forum (http://usabig.com/wowbbforums)
and The Rational Argumentator.
Order Mr.
Stolyarov's newest science fiction novel, Eden against the Colossus,
in eBook form, here.
You only pay $10.00, with no shipping and handling fees.
Give feedback on
this work at TRA's forum, which you can access at
http://rationalarg.proboards24.com.
Advertise your business or product permanently
on TRA for a mere $1 donation to a worthy endeavor to combat human aging.
Click
here to learn more.
Help bring about the cure for human aging
within our lifetimes. Learn how you can help through the
Chicago Methuselah Foundation Fund.
Visit The Rational
Argumentator's new
Online Store.
Visit TRA's Yahoo! Group, a means of
notification and communication for our subscribers. You can find it at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationalargumentator.
You can sign up by sending an e-mail to
rationalargumentator-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Click here to return to the Issue XXX index.
Visit
TRA's Master Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues
of the magazine. Click
here. |
