Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hello

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Hi

Couldn't find one single thread for introductions. Anyway, I am going to use this one. I was introduced to AR during my college days by a friend who is die-hard. Have read all the fiction and some of the non-fiction. Are only those ppl who have 'formally studied' Objectivism (under the ARI) called Objectivists or anyone who is one at heart? Well, if also the ones at heart, then I am one. As to who I am, well first of all I am a human being, then I am a female, then I am an Indian.

Looking forward to some deep insights, sharp arguments and increase in the wealth of knowledge. Thanks to the ones who took the initiative to start such a thing and give me an opportunity.

Well, I was just going thru the archive of introductions and somewhere someone(sorry don't remember who) mentioned that it is difficult to be 'moral and practical'. Is it? Why is there a dichotomy between the two? It sounds as if he/she is trying to state a contradiction and as contradictions don't exist the premise in this that morality can't be practised(at least easily) is wrong. I've never found it to be difficult. Or is the person trying to say that it is difficult because others are not moral? How does your being practically moral depend on somebody else's morality and the practice of it?

I would like some comments. Again thanks for the opportunity.

Edited by spadeaspade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, some moderator will move this into it's own thread. But I figured I'd respond anyway, since I'm not doing anything at the moment.

First of all- Welcome! I assume English is your second language? It's quite good.

No, the term "Objectivist" applies to anybody who has an adequate understanding of the philosophy and agrees with everything he/she has read. But then there's the term "student of Objectivism".... well there's plenty of threads in which this is discussed. I'll let you form you own opinion.

One of the tenents of Objectivism is that there is no difference between the moral and the practical. Because objective reality is the standard for morality, the moral has to be practical in order for it to be considered moral. I've never found it to be difficult either.

Happy readings!

Zak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome and the reply!

And yes English is my second language. Thanks for the compliment but I think there are many Indians who are good at English (Thanks to the British Raj as we call it). And I owe it to my English teacher at school - she was simply great!

Its so easy to talk to an Objectivist. Am I really talking to a stranger - doesn't at all feel like it. This is nice.

Thank you very much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to the forum. Welcome to someone from the land of Tara Malkani (I'm from India too, though I've lived in the US a while now.)

As to the two questions you ask:

There are some earlier threads that discuss who should be called an Objectivist. Here's a long and contentious one.Personally, I think that it's not worth debating in general terms i.e. unless one has a specific reason to form the concept.

I agree with "RealityCheck44" about that the practical -- the long-range, rationally practical, is the moral. Morality is not simply coincident with practicality, the two are essentially the same. Here's a post about this, albeit in a thread on a seemingly unrelated topic.

Hope you get value from the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome and the reply!

And yes English is my second language. Thanks for the compliment but I think there are many Indians who are good at English (Thanks to the British Raj as we call it). And I owe it to my English teacher at school - she was simply great!

Its so easy to talk to an Objectivist. Am I really talking to a stranger - doesn't at all feel like it. This is nice.

Thank you very much!

You're quite welcome. One of the great things about this forum is the atmosphere. It's hard to find "strangers" who are more welcoming and friendly to those who have value to offer. I always have to laugh at the people who think Objectivists (in general) are mean. I don't think you could find a "nicer" group of people. On a side note, I think its quite ironic that most people think its okay to insult someone for something good that they do (ie studying, reading, trying hard, etc), but the moment you insult someone for something that they're bad at or that is (for lack of a better word) non life-affirming, it becomes some sort of atrocity and the person is instantly labeled "mean" or "cruel". :confused:

So that was my little rant for the day. :worry: I'm going to bed now.

Zak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

First, thanks to all for the welcome. And sorry for the late reply - was out of station with no internet access and after coming back, took a little time to find this thread (this is my first experience with a 'forum').

Hi softwareNerd,

Read the posts for Tara Malkani and the moral-practical(skipped the definition of Objectivist - agree with you - no reason to debate). Good to know you are from India and still better to know you are in the US (Would love to, at least, visit it someday when I can afford it; hopefully sooner than later). I had never heard of Tara - seems to be quite a woman. But as to many Indians with interest in Objectivism I think it has also to do with the huge population we have alongwith other factors like 'brain-drain', inculcation of the reading habit since childhood among the 'educated' class etc. Also, there's one interesting factor regarding this (I don't know whether you are aware of it and/or agree with it) - the Objectivist ethics is very much near to one of the 'ways' prescribed by the Bhagvad Gita viz. the 'Karmayoga' (though I don't claim to be an expert in either technically, according to my understanding, there are common grounds between the two).

I would appreciate it if you could let me know of any 'offline' group, forum of objectivists in Mumbai (currently am at Mumbai).

Hi JMeganSnow,

It's ok. Many make that mistake. Anyway, I wasn't speicific. So, ok.

Hi Zak (b'coz you sign this I won't address you as realitycheck44),

Hope you had a nice sound sleep. The tone of your post is good - very light and happy - like 'pure' laughter. Good. Keep it that way always. And yes, I have had enough experience of being insulted b'coz I was 'good' at certain things. But, still, I don't think there's any reason to insult anyone because he/she is 'bad' at something in the first place, let alone labeling the one who does 'mean' or 'cruel'. But you are right, that happens.

Looking forward to locking horns and holding hands with you all in future. Have a good day all of you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spade, I've emailed a friend asking for current info on a Mumbai group. If I don't PM you in a couple of weeks, PM me and I'll chase it up again.

As for the Gita, I haven't read it -- unless the "Panchtantra" comic series for kids counts :). I did start on the Upanishads once, when someone told me that these were the least "religious" and the most philosophical of the ancient Indian texts. I lost interest after about 40 pages.

Here's my view, in summary: a lot of ancient texts have good ethical suggestions, if one takes those suggestions and ignore the rest. The problem is that the good stuff is mostly in Ethics; the Metaphysics and Epistemology are mystical. In the final analysis, the better ethical suggestions come down to: do this because it is common sense. The worse suggestions come down to: do this because I say so.

When one starts with a vague notion that religion requires altruism and self-sacrifice, it is a surprise to read -- in an ancient religious text -- that there is a time when pride is right, when ambition is good, and so on. Unless one cherry-picks, one will find parables to tell you that pride is good and others that tell you that humility is good. If one takes the whole thing seriously, one is left without any real principle. The best people take that, back down to a "common-sensical" approach, and live pretty good lives by cherry-picking what they like.

Modern preachers do this all the time. Sometimes you listen to a particular sermon and it is all about self-reliance, not expecting God to help you, you have to be productive and not complain about your lot...and so on.

So, I've gave up on reading ancient texts after I realized that they're for career philosophers -- particularly historians of philosophy -- not for folks who just want to use philosophy in a more layman-like way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi sNerd,

Got your PM. Thank you very much.

In summary what you say is right. I don't know anything about the Upanishads - just heard of them - not read. But what you say about cherry-picking is very true. It is the best approach.

Everyone seems to associate 'mystical' with India which I don't understand. Why is it considered mystical? Most of the things generally considered 'mystical' are mostly in tune with modern science (as far as I know). For eg. take the so called 'black magic', 'pujas' or 'yogasanas' - if one examines them properly, one can see the underlying principles which conform to physics. But to reject something before studying it because it 'apparently' looks opposed to what you think and call it mystical is something I cannot understand (please don't feel offended - it's just that I am trying to understand).

You say that the good stuff is mostly in Ethics - but Ethics needs the basis of Metaphysics and Epistemology and if these are mystical, then how can the Ethics have 'good stuff'? And if it does, then doesn'that mean that there must be some sort of reasoning to the Metaphysics and Epistemology on which it is based?

I consider the Gita a pure 'philosophical' work rather than a 'religious' work.Also, the beginning and the whole existence of the Gita is based not on 'Do this beacause I say so' but rather for explaining to Arjun why it is right for him to fight and why he should choose to do it.The whole Gita is an answer to the confused Arjun.(Arjun doesn't bow down to Krishna or take his word but keeps on arguing till he 'understands')

It is very unfortunate that you have given up on reading ancient texts(as you call them). I was looking forward to some really good inputs from you regarding the comparison between those and Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...what you say about cherry-picking is very true. It is the best approach...

The problem with "cherry-picking" is this: how to pick? By what standard? How does one validate what is right and wrong? By cherry-picking, one is merely using the old text as a "list of things to think about" and then applying one's own (perhaps implicit) philosophy to agree or disagree.

...if [the Ethics of a philosophy has 'good stuff'], doesn't that mean that there must be some sort of reasoning to the Metaphysics and Epistemology on which it is based?
No, a good metaphysics and epistemology is not implied. Remember, when I said "good stuff" I said it as "some stuff that can be cherry picked". An analogy can be seen in some free-market intellectuals who use an altruistic justification for Capitalism. Their politics will almost certainly contain some contradictions. However, they might still have good ideas in some areas, that one might cherry-pick.

If one begins by an epistemological approach that says "it's all subjective", one could arrive at "pride is good" or "pride is bad" or "pride is sometimes good and sometimes bad". To a later reader, the parables are only of help in the sense that they pose a question, and often contain an illustration. So, it might be "something to think about", but one has to have a standard and a good metaphysics/epistemology in order to evaluate it.

Most of the things generally considered 'mystical' are mostly in tune with modern science (as far as I know). For e.g. take the so called 'black magic', 'pujas' or 'yogasanas' - if one examines them properly, one can see the underlying principles which conform to physics.
This is a commonly-held view among Hindu intelligentsia. I'm guessing it was popularized by Vivekanand and others who tried to de-ritualize Hinduism.

You say that 'black magic' conforms to the laws of physics. You'll need to do better than that in this forum. If I poke a needle into a person, he screams -- there's science there, and he's conforming!! Many people try to justify the practices of ancient religions by explaining the rational reasons for them. Selected practices do make sense. However, once again, what one is doing is cherry -picking by some other standard. The rational thing to do is not to become an apologist for the religion, but to use the practice as a starting point for thought.

For instance, if I use terms as you're using them, I might say: the Jewish God was right when he commanded the Sabbath be a day of rest. This complies to the laws of human nature. Man needs rest. It was also essential to frame this as an edict in a time of slave-holders. Well, what of it? It is of historical interest, and might be a starting point for a question. However, the answer has to come from elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with "cherry-picking" is this: how to pick? By what standard? How does one validate what is right and wrong? By cherry-picking, one is merely using the old text as a "list of things to think about" and then applying one's own (perhaps implicit) philosophy to agree or disagree.

But that is true only for the texts that do not lay down the standard themselves or are not a treatise on such a standard. What about the texts which are? Then, does this not apply even to AR's work/texts/books? If you say "No because she gives you a standard", are you denying that there may be "old texts" which also give the standard? I am talking only of those texts which are about 'right' and 'wrong' - not all texts.

No, a good metaphysics and epistemology is not implied. Remember, when I said "good stuff" I said it as "some stuff that can be cherry picked". An analogy can be seen in some free-market intellectuals who use an altruistic justification for Capitalism. Their politics will almost certainly contain some contradictions. However, they might still have good ideas in some areas, that one might cherry-pick.
Ok. This will be true only if 'some' stuff is good. What if 'every' stuff is good? In your analogy, it's not the 'Capitalism' which doesn't have 'good stuff' or has 'some bad stuff' but the 'free-market intellectuals' are the ones at fault. And that exactly is my point. It's the so called 'proponents' or 'supporters' who make things difficult - not the 'stuff' or the 'work/text' carrying the stuff itself.

This is a commonly-held view among Hindu intelligentsia. I'm guessing it was popularized by Vivekanand and others who tried to de-ritualize Hinduism.

I think you have got me entirely wrong. I am not talking about 'Hinduism' at all. I am talking about philosophy as contained in one of the texts. (Like AR says, I am not concerned with the 'who', but the 'what'. I am not quoting her - just the gist. I don't remember which of her works though.) Just consider 'what' is being said first, then the rest.

You say that 'black magic' conforms to the laws of physics. You'll need to do better than that in this forum. If I poke a needle into a person, he screams -- there's science there, and he's conforming!! Many people try to justify the practices of ancient religions by explaining the rational reasons for them. Selected practices do make sense. However, once again, what one is doing is cherry -picking by some other standard.
Again you have got me wrong. I am not trying to 'justify' (in the sense whether it is right or wrong) anything. I am not trying to say 'black magic' is right or wrong; just that it 'is'. I am not 'judging' it. On the contrary, I am just saying that it is 'physically possible' and can be 'explained' in scientific terms and therefore there is no 'mystery' about it - these are not mystical. And I am not being an 'apologist' for any religion - certainly not. (Are you equating me with your 'free-market intellectuals' in the above analogy? That is very sad. You are not getting me). Why should I be afraid to call a spade a spade? I don't see any reason. A spade is a spade whether in Hinduism, any other religion or Objectivism or anywhere else for that matter.

The rational thing to do is not to become an apologist for the religion, but to use the practice as a starting point for thought.

And that exactly is my point - use the 'practice' or 'text', think and come to a conclusion. My point is that just because one adheres to Objectivism (or any other system) one should not and cannot reject others without studying them. Isn't it possible that you might find out that the other system conforms to your system or they are essentially similar?

For instance, if I use terms as you're using them, I might say: the Jewish God was right when he commanded the Sabbath be a day of rest. This complies to the laws of human nature. Man needs rest. It was also essential to frame this as an edict in a time of slave-holders. Well, what of it? It is of historical interest, and might be a starting point for a question. However, the answer has to come from elsewhere.

I am not talking about any actual 'historical events' or why they were. Only 'philosophy'. And what is that 'elsewhere'? Are you trying to say that Objectivism is the only 'elsewhere' and there can be no other? [Please don't get the idea that I don't respect Objectivism or something like that. I have the highest regard for it - otherwise I wouldn't be here. It was one of the 'things on the list' that started my thought process and I owe it a lot. But just because I respect it doesn't mean I will reject others without studying them from a neutral stand-point or will not study them at all. (AR couldn't refute Kant without studying him. She had a personal reason to study him. And I have a personal interest in studying the text I mentioned) I can completely understand that you have no interest to read such texts. And that is why I said it is unfortunate - for me.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which reminds me...

Everyone seems to associate 'mystical' with India which I don't understand. Why is it considered mystical?
So what do you think it means to be "mystical"? Various doctrines like Maya and reincarnation, are partially responsible as are obviously multiple deities contribute to the mystery, and I'm personally mystified as to whether Krishna is the same as Vishnu, or whatever happened to Agni. You may rightly object that the West also has skepticism and reincarnation -- you know where we got it from, right?

However, I think the typical view of Indian philosophy is not warranted if applied to the Carvaka school, but I have negligible knowledge of them. Hmmm.... thanks to Wikipedia, I now see that it is actually possible to learn a bit more about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which reminds me...So what do you think it means to be "mystical"? Various doctrines like Maya and reincarnation, are partially responsible as are obviously multiple deities contribute to the mystery, and I'm personally mystified as to whether Krishna is the same as Vishnu, or whatever happened to Agni. You may rightly object that the West also has skepticism and reincarnation -- you know where we got it from, right?

Sorry, maybe I haven't put my point across clearly. I am not 'directly' dealing with what is or is not 'mystical'. The point I am trying to make is : Many people apply the term 'mystical' (for me in this context mystery) to something they don't understand (after an apparent cursory glance) because they haven't 'sufficiently and properly studied' it and then go about calling it mystical (most of the times with a slur or sarcasm and an obvious negative connotation). My point is if one hasn't properly studied a particular subject, one should not talk about it negatively. My point is that there would be no 'mysticism' if one really studied something to the core - but until one does one should not, at least, bad-mouth it. As to the actual mysticism of many practices especially in India, it is a different and very vast topic for which I myself am not prepared as I haven't studied it (which I have already mentioned). And no, I don't know from where the West got its skepticism and reincarnation.

Also, I have a personal interest in studying the philosophy contained in the Gita (mainly the Ethics as contained in the Chapter 3 - Karmayog; although other chapters also have to be referenced) and comparing it with Objectivism, as I have already mentioned. I was just looking for someone who has/have studied the Gita or at least read it (I take it that such a person would already be an authority on Objectivism if he is here and he is a senior member). This would have been really helpful to me. But if the authorities here think that this is a dogma (or something like that), I will immediately leave this forum (I know it is your forum, and I understand and respect property rights. I am here on your terms and the only choice for me is to leave it if I refuse to accept your terms) Just let me know.(I have noticed a 'Warn' against my profile near the posts. I am not sure what that 'Warn' means but I am taking this as a warning for my earlier post where I talked about something being or not being 'mystical'. And if indeed it is, it is very unfair (especially coming from Objectivists or 'objective people') - without sending me any msg or at least some communication and without trying to understand what I was trying to say. If it is not, sorry for the misinterpretation. But kindly let me know. It is very difficult to continue under such circumstances (the warn sign). If it is what I think it is and is not removed, then I might as well remove myself from this forum.

However, I think the typical view of Indian philosophy is not warranted if applied to the Carvaka school, but I have negligible knowledge of them. Hmmm.... thanks to Wikipedia, I now see that it is actually possible to learn a bit more about them.

Now, what is the 'typical view of Indian philosophy'? And who holds it - are you talking of the West or just yourself? Again I won't be able to comment on the Chaarwaak ( I will spell it as it is pronounced - I am not sure of the English punctuations for the pronunciation if the way you spell it 'Carvaka' is used) as I haven't studied it. But I intend to (but not before the Gita). When I do, if you are interested (it is now able to learn not a bit but the whole of it), we could talk further. If you are, that would be really something (I assume you are an American) and would be glad to acquire some more knowledge and learn. If I have to leave this forum, I would still like to discuss this further if you are interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people apply the term 'mystical' (for me in this context mystery) to something they don't understand (after an apparent cursory glance) because they haven't 'sufficiently and properly studied' it and then go about calling it mystical (most of the times with a slur or sarcasm and an obvious negative connotation).
That may well be, and I think if a rational person is going to reject a doctrine, you need to understand what it is and why it's wrong. Once you understand the nature of, say Maya, then you should reject it. I don't agree with your conclusion that "mysticism" refers to something that you don't understand -- it refers to something that denies logic.
And no, I don't know from where the West got its skepticism and reincarnation.
Ah, well we (or, the Greeks) got it from India, both directly thanks to Alexander and indirectly through Persia
I was just looking for someone who has/have studied the Gita or at least read it (I take it that such a person would already be an authority on Objectivism if he is here and he is a senior member).
I read it, years ago. Though I wasn't reading for content, it was a translation exercise and I didn't understand the philosophical content. Now I don't know what the "authorities" have said, but I do know that, just to be concrete about the issue, Ch. 3 is incompatible with Objectivism. First, Krsna states that all action is sacrifice -- this is wrong. Second, he denies that man can act on his own (Nature acts through man), and Arjuna is told to "let go", and let God work through him -- man has no responsibility for his actions. Of course, denial of free will is anathema to Objectivist ethics.
I am not sure what that 'Warn' means but I am taking this as a warning for my earlier post where I talked about something being or not being 'mystical'.
Look for the number: everybody has a "Warn" bar that starts at 0%.
Now, what is the 'typical view of Indian philosophy'? And who holds it - are you talking of the West or just yourself?
I'm speaking of in the West, and I don't have the typical view, since I can concretize my objections slightly better than most, though probably not as well as the majority of Indians. At any rate, my slim understanding of Carvaka (I'll stick with the western standard for e-transcribing Sanskrit, and we can just translate each other's spelling subconsciously) is that it is the Indian philosophy that is least in contradiction with Objectivism. But close doesn't count.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
That may well be, and I think if a rational person is going to reject a doctrine, you need to understand what it is and why it's wrong. Once you understand the nature of, say Maya, then you should reject it. I don't agree with your conclusion that "mysticism" refers to something that you don't understand -- it refers to something that denies logic.

Ok, we can adhere to your definition of mysticism. So, what is your understanding of the concept 'Maya'? And why are you rejecting it?

Though I wasn't reading for content, it was a translation exercise and I didn't understand the philosophical content. Now I don't know what the "authorities" have said, but I do know that, just to be concrete about the issue, Ch. 3 is incompatible with Objectivism. First, Krsna states that all action is sacrifice -- this is wrong. Second, he denies that man can act on his own (Nature acts through man), and Arjuna is told to "let go", and let God work through him -- man has no responsibility for his actions. Of course, denial of free will is anathema to Objectivist ethics.
Now, you say that you did not understand the philosophical content and then go on to make a conclusion that it is incompatible with Objectivism. I am confused. Also, can you state the exact shlokas from which you have derived the above conclusions? Because if free will had been denied, there would be no question of a choice to war or not war for Arjun. I think also that you are drawing conclusions out of context. I think it will be better if we systemised this discussion - take certain shloks and discuss the interpretation.

At any rate, my slim understanding of Carvaka (I'll stick with the western standard for e-transcribing Sanskrit, and we can just translate each other's spelling subconsciously) is that it is the Indian philosophy that is least in contradiction with Objectivism. But close doesn't count.

"But close doesn't count" is a conclusion based on 'slim understanding'. Instead why not conclude on 'fat (kidding) strict understanding'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...