Tradition and Objectivism

William Tingley

A Journal for Western Man-- Issue XXX-- January 27, 2005

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.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA's Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA's Issue XXX Index.

Visit TRA's Principal Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues of the magazine. Click here.