I’m a big fan of writer/philosopher Ayn Rand and her concepts on Objectivism.
Objectivism is pretty simple. It states that there is a truth to the Universe, that there is a reality to the world, a “mind-independent” reality. Make sense? You don’t have to agree with it, just tell me you understand it and can see that such a concept might be true.
Ok, so if you buy that, that there is a truth to the world, then get ready for step 2 (where I break from Rand’s philosophy a bit): We all have our own individual perceptions. Every one of us. So, therefore, nothing is provable. Instead it’s all stuff that a certain percentage of us agree upon. Like, water, for example. All over the world, 100% of us share a similar perception, that water is 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen. But what about money? In America, we see it as a dollar. But in England, they see it as a pound. And they’re not equal in value. One actually buys you more stuff than the other, depending on where you are. So you can see how perception rules the world, not truth.
Now comes the part where I relate this to parenting: I believe all of the above, and I believe it applies to all our children. I believe that when the milk gets spilled, I have my perception of how it happened, but my son sees it a different way. They may be pretty similar perceptions, but they might be very different. Regardless, it doesn’t make one of us “right” and the other, “wrong.” It just means that we see things differently and that we have to come to an understanding.
Now, I picked a pretty benign example, one of spilled milk. So it’s easy to apply Rand’s concept of Objectivism to “The Big Thursday Night Dinner Where Nich Spilled The Milk.” ‘Cause really, who cares, you just grab a towel and clean it up and move on.
But where it gets more difficult is when you have a difference of perspective over something that really matters, like pre-marital sex, or abortion, or smoking, or drugs, or cheating. It can get really hairy, and tempers can fly. So, for me, it helps to realize, even for a moment, that whatever’s going on, it’s just my experience of it, and that, by itself, doesn’t make me right.
by Stu Mark
[tags]kids, children, parents, relationships, objectivism, perception, Ayn Rand, right, wrong[/tags]
Photo graciously provided by eqqman, through a Creative Commons license, some rights reserved
9 responses so far ↓
Richard Bramwell // Oct 15, 2007 at 6:48 am
Nicely put.
Stu Mark // Oct 15, 2007 at 7:56 am
Richard,
Thank you very much. Your compliment genuinely boosted my spirits this morning.
Diana Hsieh // Oct 16, 2007 at 7:03 am
I’m not sure why you made the connection to Ayn Rand in the first paragraph, as she would vehemently disagree with your step 2 that “We all have our own individual perceptions. Every one of us. So, therefore, nothing is provable.” That’s skepticism and subjectivism — two views that Ayn Rand wholly rejected.
According to Ayn Rand, a person can know objective, certain truths — if he chooses to think logically rather than (for example) indulging in emotions or blindly following tradition. Rational thought is a demanding process; it requires serious evaluation of your own mental processes — not just supposing that whatever pops into your noodle must be right, as most people do.
For more details on Ayn Rand’s views, see Leonard Peikoff’s _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_.
Stu Mark // Oct 16, 2007 at 7:22 am
Diana,
Fair enough, except I think that Ayn would just disagree with a bit of couching that I did. My example was one she would approve of, the scientific view of water. And that’s the point that I was going for, that objectivism requires consensus.
Although I could be wrong about that.
Diana Hsieh // Oct 16, 2007 at 7:54 am
Stu Mark, you’re definitely wrong that Ayn Rand would think that “objectivism requires consensus.” If you’ve read _The Fountainhead_, you should know why. Roark is right — no matter how many people agree with or disagree with him.
Objectivity requires only the individual mind grasping the facts based on a process of reason. Whether others do the same is irrelevant.
Stu Mark // Oct 16, 2007 at 8:00 am
Diana,
Yeah, I see what you’re saying, and you’re right, I’m twisting things a bit, probably to serve my own purpose. Maybe I need to illustrate better my break with Rand. Thanks for the analysis and the politeness. I’m gonna go get my copy of The Fountainhead right now!
Stu Mark // Oct 16, 2007 at 8:31 am
Diana,
I adjusted my post to signify my break with Rand. Thanks again, this was fun.
Stu
Tere // Oct 17, 2007 at 11:34 am
Great post, Stu. Well put!
Diana Hsieh // Oct 17, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Thanks for clarifying your post. That’s cool of you.
I hope that you enjoy _The Fountainhead_. I wish that I could read it again for the first time!
Leave a Comment