FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions About Individualism and Individualist Voice
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions About Individualism and Individualist Voice
What should be the function of emotion in one's life? | Is individualism "anti-social"? | Do individualists believe in God? | Does individualism mean that people should do whatever they feel like doing? | Are moral standards compatible with individualism? | Isn't your brand of individualism extreme? | Is there a difference between individualism and Objectivism? | Why isn't this web site called "Objectivist Voice"? | Is anarchism compatible with individualism? | Isn't law just an attempt at a collective solution to an individual problem? | Why aren't socialists regarded as non-conformists? | Who is Logan Feys? | Are you a Kelleyite or a Peikoffian? | But what about women and minorities?
Happiness -- the ultimate goal of a rational life -- is itself an emotion. But only a thinking person can experience the kind of non-contradictory happiness that is the emotional reward of being true to rationality.
However, a thinking person does not rely on emotions to guide his decisions. A person who does (an emotionalist) has no control over himself because his emotions are constantly changing and he has no way of determining which emotions to act on. Emotions result from one's choices in life; if those choices are rational, then the emotions that follow should be experienced fully.
Do individualists believe in God?
At its root, individualism refers to the primacy of the individual in social relations, and I advocate carrying individualist principles to their ultimate culmination. I exist within society. That doesn't mean I'm a product of it. So feel free to call me "rugged," to call me "radical," to call me a "social deviant," or to call me "extreme."
Why isn't this web site called "Objectivist Voice"?
Individualist Voice is dedicated to applying the philosophy of Objectivism to one's life and social relations. However, because the web site focuses primarily on the themes of freedom, independence, and non-conformity (and not on technical issues in Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology), it should not be regarded as a web site for Objectivism in general.
Is anarchism compatible with individualism?
The two concepts are incompatible. Individualism holds that all individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness as they see fit. However, an individual may not pursue happiness by denying another, through the use of force, the ability to pursue his. Thus, a system of law defending individual rights is essential to the preservation of a free society. Anarchy repudiates the rule of law, and therefore repudiates individual rights. So-called "individualist anarchism" is an oxymoron put forth by advocates of anarchy, not individualism. (See "A Dialogue Between Anark and Indiv" for a more in-depth discussion of this topic.)
Isn't law just an attempt at a collective solution to an individual problem -- that problem being self-protection/self-defense? (submitted by juggle-drop)
Law is a means of establishing objective, enforceable prohibitions on behaviors that threaten or violate the rights of individuals. It's true that law is "collective" in the sense that it applies to everyone. However, law, in a free society, is not "collectivist." Law's only legitimate purpose is to protect individuals from acts of physical aggression.
Law, of course, cannot take the place of self-protection and self-defense. Defending oneself against attacks by perpetrators is a fundamental right. However, seeking out justice after the fact is a different matter entirely. Without law, anyone could impose his own idea of justice on anyone else. That would be among the worst collective problems imaginable.
Why aren't socialists regarded as non-conformists?
Socialists claim to be dissenters who challenge the status quo. However, despite their militant opposition to the current mixed economy, socialists are conformists--to a larger degree than those who maintain the status quo.
Socialism as an ideology is all about conformity. It outlaws independent economic decision-making by individuals. It demands that individuals surrender themselves to the dictates of the state.
Because socialism denies individuals the ability to act according to their own judgment, socialists use anti-rational methods of communicating their beliefs and attracting followers. They make emotional pleas for their statist system, insisting that feelings of intent are superior to facts of reality (thus urging people to conform to selected emotional dogmas). And finally, they trumpet "unity" (i.e. group-think) as a moral virtue.
I am the founder and principal intellectual content provider for Individualist Voice. I describe myself as a man with a passion for the ideas of individual freedom. I have waged a lifelong, mostly lonely battle against the forces of conformity. Now that I have developed a set of core philosophical principles that explicitly guide my life, I want to share with others the great rewards of attaining what I call self-liberation. While I am still developing and learning to apply consistently many aspects of my philosophy, the fundamentals will never change.
I survived 12 years of compulsory government schooling and four years of higher schooling, during which time I kept my mind relatively intact. I generally prefer solitude to socializing, but I cherish the companionship of those who appreciate me as an individual. I was born in the 1970s.
Are you a Kelleyite or a Peikoffian?
The question pertains to the split among self-described Objectivists between supporters of David Kelley, head of The Objectivist Center, and supporters of Leonard Peikoff, generally regarded as the leading expert on Objectivism. Peikoff and his champions at the Ayn Rand Institute claim to adhere firmly to the teachings of Rand. Those who side with Kelley embrace a more flexible, and, they say, a more "tolerant" brand of Objectivism.
Genuine individualists avoid being followers of other individuals or groups. There's nothing wrong, of course, with supporting an organization, but group affiliation ought not substitute for ideas. Objectivism is not ARI, or TOC, or Peikoff, or Kelley, or even Ayn Rand. It is not a club or even a movement. Objectivism is a philosophy, a set of fundamental ideas which can be grasped and lived out by anyone. (For a lengthier critique of Organized Objectivism, see "Libertarianism: An Objective Evalutaion.")