DavidV

The forum has been a little quiet lately, so I thought I’d insert some controversy to stir things up. Steve and I were starting to debate this on Instant Messengers, but I thought that it would be preferable to share our wisdom with the rest of the world. My argument is that a church of some kind is needed for every society, even a rational one. Before I explain what I mean by a “church,” let me give my case. All men need an abstract system of ideas of some sort to guide their life. This system, which we know as a man’s philosophy does not come automatically, cannot be merely read from a book, and must be actively integrated and applied to a man’s life as long as he lives. A rational philosophy must be come from or be integrated with a man’s inductive knowledge, and must go from the highly abstract (life is good, reality knowable) to the specific (lying is bad, sex is good) Most men will never have the ability to come up with a wholly rational philosophy, implicitly or otherwise, but must learn it from some source. Even in a (comparatively) super-wealthy, rational society based on the Objectivist philosophy, the great majority of individuals will not be intellectuals and probably won’t even go to college. My guess is that only those involved in intellectual, engineering, and scientific careers will actually continue their formal education after high school. Whatever the case, I highly doubt that most people will bother to study philosophy on any highly abstract level. I would not blame them – as non-intellectuals, they will have other important priorities for their lives, and will leave the job of abstract thinking to those who have the ability and aptitude for it. Perhaps Atlas and Fountainhead will be required reading in High School, but “The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts” will not be, and there is no reason for the average non-intellectual to read it. Nevertheless, everyone, philosopher or not, will need (and does need now) a regular re-affirmation of their values, a reminder of the Big Picture, and practical advice for how to apply the philosophical attitude that they will now take for granted to their life. This need must be fulfilled in some way, and I think inevitably, there will be some sort of a Church, where groups of individuals will regularly congregate to reaffirm their values, and receive regular lectures on abstract issues and their application to their life. So here’s what I mean by a “church”: “A formally organized body of individuals who share some creed and meet on a regular basis to re-affirm their values and concretize abstract principles into practical guidance for their lives.” Obviously, I don’t mean that there will be any prayer going on, (and mass singing freaks me out as well) but regular lectures (perhaps by future traveling Andy Bernstein), Sunday school classes, social gatherings, and events like marriages, funerals, and holidays will all play the same basic role they do in today’s churches, although the advice dispensed will be radically different. It’s also likely that there will be competing churches will competing schools of thought, and perhaps competing corporations running and licensing franchises, much as they do today. In short, they will provide concretized guidance to individuals who’s primary focus in life is not intellectual activity, and thus who don’t have the ability to spend years of independent or institutional learning dedicated to philosophy. My guess is that there will even be a separation of “church and school” so that parents will be able to send their children to one place to get their basic and technical education, and another for their philosophy. So that’s my idea. I think even Objectivists today would benefit from – and in fact need a forum whether they interact with like-minded individuals for social, spiritual, and practical reasons. You don’t have to call it a church – it could be called a temple or a lyceum, but the function of the institution is needed in any society.

New live chat forum installed at http://ObjectivismOnline.com/chat Added support for giving away email accounts @objectivismonline.net (Are free email accounts a good "award" for top posters in the forum?)

A few things: Postnuke has been updated to a new version (7.26) Members can now add events to the calendar. More classifications have been added to the seniority ratings ( the pips). I'm considering an award of some sort to be given to the most active posters -- to be decided later. The forum will be updated to the new version soon, when the final 1.2 release comes out (any day now) Update: Forum Updated to 1.2! Added some new features like the warning system. Need to update theme files.

Try now -- I added that permission to regular members.

Suv, I've met a suprising number of people interested in Objectivism from India. Now this may just becuase of the large population, but is how strong do you think interest in Objectivism is in India? How did you discover Ayn Rand? PS: Welcome to the forum!

ok check out the photos @ http://www.rationalmind.net/OCON and my report at http://www.rationalmind.net/david/archives/000542.html

Arg, Cox (my ISP) blocked port 80, preventing outside access to my web server...I'll post them as soon as I find room on another server...

Well, normally I sell them to SpammersRus.net for big bucks, but I'll make an exception in your case

RadCap, if you ever register, I promise to make you a moderator, so you can dispose of trolls the civilized way -- by kicking them from the forum.

As a minor correction to RE's post, "Objectivism" consists solely of the philosophy AR wrote and approved of during her lifetime, and excludes what her "legal heirs" might say, as Peikoff pointed out in the intro to OPAR. If I had to come up with a more exact definition of what makes one an "Objectivist," I’d say that an understanding of all the ideas presented in OPAR and perhaps ITOE is sufficient. By “understanding,” I mean that one has integrated all of the ideas and can validate them inductively from direct experience. This definition is useful for differentiating between Objectivism as such and specific applications of it, on which there is room for rational disagreement. For example, Ayn Rand’s views on a female president would be an application of her philosophy, not Objectivism per se. (I think she said that herself somewhere.) Likewise, Ayn Rand gave her opinion on a large number of other topics which were an application of Objectivism or a reflection of her personal tastes and not part of the philosophy as such.

This may be a stupid question, especially since I spent the same two days listening to Ridpath's lecture on Nietzsche as you did, but how did the Nazi's embrace Nietzsche's egoism? I see how they were both idealists (qua Kant) and pragmatic nihilists (qua Nietzsche) -- but how were they in any way egoists? Another question -- do the words "selfishness" and "egoism" necessarily mean "rational self-interest" or simply "what one perceives to be in one's interest"? As I see it, "selfishness" subsumes both rational selfishness-- that is doing what is truly in one's self-interest, and "unbridled selfishness" -- that is acting on whims, pragmatism, irrational fantasies, etc. Under this definition, Nietzsche is in fact an egoist, albeit an irrational one. Of course since he rejected the self as such, this is debatable..

I wrote some guidelines on the main site, but it's down right now, unfortunately. I should have it back up when I get back from vacation next week. Anyway, the forums are intended for anyone who is genuinely interested in Objectivism, regardless of his actual views. Everyone who is honest and open to rational discourse is welcome to participate. Furthermore, the topics are not limited to Objectivism, as long as they are not disruptive and within the proper topic.

Well, no other members at OCON that use that forum, but I will be posting a ton of photos and my chronicles as soon as I get back home and regain access to my blog!

I've heard from a number of people about how rare capitalists are in Europe. I think organizing a Walk for Capitalism ( http://www.celebratecapitalism.org/ ) is a good way to promote your ideas even if you don't know any Objectivists where you live. A friend in Belguim organized one and was amazed and how much support he got for a pro-capitalist demonstration in a socialist country.

I'm going to grad school at the "other" big school in Texas and really regreting not having applied to UT, which will host Tara Smith and both Dr. Peikoff's next semester. It's only an hour's drive away, but the UT Objectivist club is non-existent, which is a real shame becuase they could have had several great speakers this year.

First, a correction: an "Objectivist" is someone who agrees with Miss Rands philosophy, not all her ideas per se. Many people confuse the distinction between subjective tastes and preferences (food, music, art styles, vocations) and objective evaluations about the nature of reality (ie their philosophy). Not saying you did this, just FYI Also, what's a "constitutionalist" according to Mr DeVoon? Finally, calling someone an "idiot" is not an especially effective way of accomplishing anything. Maybe Mr DeVoon is just ignorant, maybe he is questioning his current views and seeks to challenge them on this forum. Or maybe he really is delusional, evasive, and "mentally challenged" -- which his self-claimed contradictory title seems to suggest -- in that case, either ignoring him, or blocking him if he starts pestering the forum would be the best course of action.

I second that. Mike Mentzer's workouts are aimed primarily towards bodybuilders, but anyone who wants to get into or maintain their shape will find them shorter (half an hour once a week or so) and more effective than than any other exersize routines I know of. "The ideal man is the epitome of physical and mental perfection." - Me

what do you mean? between which pages?

*bump!* Maybe it's the combination of finals and my first trip to the west coast I'm getting more and more excited as the conference nears. :-) I got a list of the 18 working scholars' emails and cross referenced it (via sql) it with forum's registered users but got 0 hits. Kinda strange since I know that 2 of users are definately going...

Looks very nice :-) I'm glad to see a new Objectivist blog spring up -- not just becuase I'm making money from it, but also becuase blogs have a lot of influence on search engines as well as a wide readership (if the're good.) If you keep up the timely reports on the news, you can expect a steady and growing stream of search engine visistors looking for information on the topic. In addition, each link you make is a vote for the target site, raising their prominence in seach engine results and helping direct more traffic their way.

Wow, John, that really is a weird combination.... I did two years of coding in ASP/SQL Server at my old job (I quit shortly after they switched to JSP & Vignette), and lots of PHP/MySQL coding at the blog hosting venture I run. Right now I'm learning VB.Net and creating a mod of the IBuySpy store. In my opinion, while ASP is a dinosaur and JSP is waaay to complex and slow, PHP/MySQL is a simple, cheap, fast and scalable options for many projects. However the power of .Net simply blows away everything out there, and its Web Controls are light years ahead of what anyone else has to offer. Private Function Objectivism(ByVal Reason, ByVal Rights, ByVal Reality) As New Philosophy End Function

I agree. When/if it becomes a problem, I'll certainly consider it. Right now I'm more interested in getting more people to visit the forum than monitoring who visits it.

Oops, time was off by 5 hours.

I think that attempts to defend volition as purely physical are just as misguided and erroneous as attempts to defend it by quantum randomness. The “mind-body problem” is actually a false dichotomy, as is any attempt to define the mind as either purely physical or entirely non-physical. Consciousness and volition is probably the hardest aspect of philosophy to understand, and the analogy I use to help me understand it is hardware vs. software. Hardware is the framework that the software runs on, and it places certain limits on the speed and complexity of the computation. Software is the conceptual description of the physical process that occurs during computation. Take the simplest example: a light switch. The hardware is the physical on/off switch and the software is our concept of on or off. The brand of switch may vary, but the concept remains the same. The makeup of a computer program is logical commands and raw data, and the makeup of a mind is concepts and sense impressions. We don’t say that software is physical or not-physical, because it is in fact a description of relationships between physical components – and so is the mind. Consciousness is an emergent entity that can’t be reduced to any single idea or brain cell, and is not dependent on any particular “platform” – but it nevertheless defined and limited by the brain it runs on. Thus, computers are limited to a certain operating speed and memory capacity as defined by their hardware, and humans are limited to a certain thinking speed and limited focus defined by their brain.

I find it interesting that perhaps half of the people who believe in an objective morality not based on religion arbitrarily decide that it must be based on the "instinct" to reproduce. The other half (excluding Objectivists, of course) arbitrarly decide that it has to be based on some sort of altruism.