Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Conviviality And Humor Vs 'seriousness'

Rate this topic


Gabriel

Recommended Posts

Want to explain to me why I am wrong?  Then do it.  And by the way, Stephen, I never said it was what I believed, but that it was Branden's. But that doesn't matter anyway, because I have not fully decided on the issue.

So you don't really believe your own arguments? Like in the anti-drug commercials, this is your mind on "emotion, intuiton, and experience?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, I started thinking about the proper role of charisma and other non-verbal form of communication. You could say that it's a matter of sense-of-life applied to mood, demeanor and language.

For people holding happiness and their highest purpose, Objectivists project a distinct 'aura' of unhappiness and discontent, largely through non-verbal cues. (we're already discussing verbal/explicit attitudes in the other thread)

I remember that the most succesful teachers in school (both succesful in teaching their students and in gaining the full attention and respect they deserved) were very whitty, easy going and overall projecting an image of self-suficiency and relaxation.

Don't get me wrong, these were people of great principles, but they managed to not be bitter about the flaws of the people around them, and try to guide them without throwing their jugements around, like slaps.

Even though there's certainly a time and place for the 'no-nonsense serious' look, I think that it's over-used in Objectivist circles, so o-ists end up seen as bitter, vindictive, arrogant, dogmatic and self-defeating. It's an image problem.

I'm all for 'Judge and prepare to be judged', but when expressing a judgement it makes little sense to do so in a spiteful and negative manner, especially if these nuances are non-verbal.

I'm used to being called a 'fool', or otherwise treated unpolitely, in O-ist circled, but that's just because I know how to interpret it. Very seldom did I find someone who corrected or engaged me in a helpful or respectful manner. Most of the time you get spitefulness or an otherwise bad attitude/vibe.

Is such resentment towards the society at large a manadatory trait of Objectivism?

I'm a little confused about your point.

The first paragraph seems to be about general mannerisms as you say "non verbal communications as well as charisma. Are you saying that the Objectivists you know in person are relatively bland and non-charismatic? Or are you basing your assumption on perceived personalities with whom you are communicating with in this or this type of forum?

You mention your teachers in your 3rd paragraph and I am unsure if they are examples of Objectivists you have known in person, or are they people for whom you simply find interesting and respectable?

There are individuals who will identify themselves in a blanket manner - whether they call themselves Objectivists or not - who may tend to go overboard and become dogmatic. However, dogmatism is counter to individualism and also counter to the philosophy of Objectivism. Rather than learning to develop informed opinions on ones own - one would make a giant leap of "faith" to count on reason and rationality suggested by any other given every particular situation one is faced on a daily basis.

Do you suggest Objectivists are resentful of persons unlike themselves? This seems to suggest Objectivists are bigots. I'm not sure your experiences - particularly in person with Objectivists - but the perception which you present seems very subjective. Again, you present your observations as relating to Objectivists non-verbal skills and I am not sure exactly what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm used to being called a 'fool'... but that's just because I know how to interpret it.

Is such resentment towards the society at large a manadatory trait of Objectivism?

Did they call you a fool or did you pick up a non-verbal vibe from their aura?

Maybe it's just you and not society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, stop with the insults. Those types of arguments get no one anywhere on either side.

Brian - I looked through Stephen's posts in this thread and found no insults directed at you. I suggest you either quote the so-called insults and defend against them, or take your words back.

"Counting on your intellectual honesty."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian, if you feel insulted by the correct identification of the nature and meaning of your words and ideas, then perhaps you should reconsider what you think.

If anyone, it is you who is guilty of insults. You insult Ayn Rand and her philosophy by promoting Nathaniel Branden. This is a forum dedicated to the philosophy of Objectivism, and its founder permanently and totally repudiated Branden, both personally and in regard to her philosophy. Yet you chose to make a post on this forum which promoted Branden's essay on the supposed "hazards" of Objectivism, an essay riddled with derogatory mischaracterizations of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. That is insulting.

Let me say further that when you refer to yourself as an Objectivist, and then utter the words "Life is far too complex to understand with pure reason," you demonstrate that you are exactly the sort of person to whom Branden's remarks are really addressed, the same sort of person that he is: You both want your Objectivism, and you want to eat it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, stop with the insults...Stephen, I never said it was what I believed, but that it was Branden's.

Did you mistake Stephen w/ me. I said that you take cues from Branden.

I did not insinuate intentionally that you follow Branden. I intended it to be literal. He got you to question yourself. That is all he wanted. He handed you the cue which was a duplicate concept, and you applied it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slave, Branden meant that O'ists will use pure reason to reach conlusions and call those conclusions "reasonable" which may be over-simplified.    And this will yield another set of reasoning of over-simplified conclusions, etc, etc.  Life is far too complex to understand with pure reason. Along with reason there is intuition, emotion, and pure experience.

Not to mention ESP.

Here's what Branden had to say, and I quote EXACTLY:

If, for example, one even suggests that there is some pretty

impressive evidence accumulating for the reality of non-ordinary forms

of perception (forms that do not fit contemporary paradigms), count on

many Objectivists to howl "Mystic!" or "Irrationalist!" or "Whim-

worshiper!"--all the old Objectivist cliches when dealing with

"enemies."

Folks, if we want to be genuine advocates of reason, we've

got to rethink this practice. I wish I had understood this 30 or 40

years ago. I promise you, fifty years from now what is called a

"reasonable" view of the universe is going to look very different from

the view we call "reasonable" today. This is not--let me emphasize

this--an invalidation of reason; not at all; it is reason that will

lead the way to the new and improved world view. But it would be

foolish vanity to imagine that we will see and understand this right

from the beginning. No, some of us will brand the bringers of the

new world view as "mystics." And the truth is, mysticism will have

nothing to do with it.

As sure as I'm writing this, someone on this list will write

something like "I never expected Nathaniel Branden to embrace all this

New Age craziness!" Why? Because that is the way too many

"students of Objectivism" will process my above remarks...which, in

reality, have nothing to do with "New Age craziness." (I am NOT a New

Ager.)

[Posted to the AYNRAND e-mail list on Tue Aug 17, 1993 10:32 am PDT]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was an advocate of reason but in a matter of 2 days I thought about emotion, intuition, and experience.  I figured that each could be used as a tool, altogther.  But Rand, or O'ism, states that Reason is THE tool. If it is the only tool where do emotion, intuition, and experience take their part?  Are they interconnected?  Does emtion, intuition, and experience each stem from Reason?

They can and ought to.

Emotions come automatically from our value premises and we have the option of choosing our values by reason -- or not.

Intuition is the automatic integration of subscious material. The material can get INTO the subconscious by a chosen process of reason -- or just accumulated in there by accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can and ought to.

Emotions come automatically from our value premises and we have the option of choosing our values by reason -- or not.

Intuition is the automatic integration of subscious material. The material can get INTO the subconscious by a chosen process of reason -- or just accumulated in there by accident.

And, just to emphasize a related point: It is only those for which reason is "THE tool" of cognition, who can rely upon and fully enjoy their emotions. Ideas accepted by any means other than a rational process will lead to emotions which seem disconnected from and foreign to the person's psyche. To such a person it will seem as if the source of the emotion is from some "deeper" self, as if a little person lived within, sending emotional messages about the world. It is no wonder that those who relinquish rational control over every aspect of their life feel the need to grant to emotions a power that they, inherently, do not have. That power to them is quite real, because the emotion they feel is more real than whatever it is they hold within their heads.

This is the key that charlatans like Branden capitalize on in gaining an audience. He taps into the worst of people, not the best, and he elevates that worst to a level of significance, clothing it in nice sounding psychological jargon. The self-styled "Objectivists" who buy into that could just as easily have become New Age Crystal worshippers, Scientologists, Rosicrucians, or whatever particular sect or cult the wind happened to blow in their direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erandror, I thank you for reaching a logical conclusion regarding these ‘insults’. You do this very often…. you solve disputes between people easily on this forum. Here is what I thought was an insult from Stephen: “Perhaps he ignores it so that someone like Brian can say "Life is far too complex to understand with pure reason" and still think of himself as an Objectivist.” I just don’t see this as a correct response to something that should be taken very seriously. I am certainly up for constructive criticisms from Stephen. Take this situation: what if someone you were arguing with merely said, “You’re wrong, and that’s that.” And never offered a reason? That’s how I felt. By the way, I never proclaimed myself to be an Objectivist, for all of who seem to think that I have did so.

“Slave, Branden meant that O'ists will use pure reason to reach conlusions and call those conclusions "reasonable" which may be over-simplified. And this will yield another set of reasoning of over-simplified conclusions, etc, etc. Life is far too complex to understand with pure reason. Along with reason there is intuition, emotion, and pure experience. “

This is what Branden would/does believe. I did, however, believe what he said at one point (which happened to be a matter of two days – and which was the period of which I have posted), but I have resolved my issue. Here is what I think: As for thought and emotion, I agree that the two are linked. Let's say you must make a decision. You decide that there is a right one, and a wrong one. You want to do/care about doing, what is right. You decide that value "X' is the right thing to do. If you do it, then you should feel happy about doing value "X" and not doing the contrary, value "Z". If you decide that value "Z" is the wrong thing to do, and then go along with it anyway, then you will not be happy about it. So emotion is a response to reason, yes? You relied on reason to decide what you wanted to do. Conclusively, you felt that you did want to do it, right? If so, then therefore, reason and emotion are connected. As for the wrong decision: You decided that it was wrong to do. Then, because it was wrong, you decided that you didn't want to do it. Becuase you didn't want to do it, you felt that it'd be the wrong choice. You feel it and know it? "I feel it's wrong because I have decided that it is." Does all of this sound logical? If it's confusing, try rereading it.

After I found out that I had a dogmatic approach to Objectivism, I wasn't sure if I truly believed in reason the whole time I was dogmatic. I suppose I just threw the concept of reason out the window and considered everything else. But now I truly know what the correct route is. I'm glad I went thru the ordeal, I know both sides of the issue and am more complete. One must discover these things on their own. One should not stick to some arbitrary tenet, as I did in the past.

--Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does all of this sound logical?
After reading it several times, it is logical.

After I found out that I had a dogmatic approach to Objectivism, I wasn't sure if I truly believed in reason the whole time I was dogmatic. I suppose I just threw the concept of reason out the window and considered everything else.  But now I truly know what the correct route is.  I'm glad I went thru the ordeal, I know both sides of the issue and am more complete.  One must discover these things on their own. One should not stick to some arbitrary tenet, as I did in the past.

There is a big difference between believe and know. Belief is not required to have sensory data. I believe in God. No one can produce anything concrete - except faith which is an abstraction and not a concrete.

As soon as you have sensory data to support your belief w/o any erronious assumptions, you have gained knowledge. It can not be contested at the point. A^^2 + B^^2 = C^^2; E=mC^^2; IR=V; S=P+jQ

If you you have erronious assumptions, you are making a mistake. For instance, a dolphin is a fish becasue I saw it in water. By defintion, a fish is cold blooded which excludes dolphins from that classification. For those that fail to check the premises (a fish is an animal that lives in water), they will continue to make the errors repeatedly.

You took what someone said to be true with all sorts of assumtpions attached that you failed to resolve. When you resolve those issues, you get a great feeling - consciousness. If you do not have that same feeling in all of your decisions, you are making a mistake somewhere. Start checking the premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I became seriously depressed after reading The Fountainhead...

Yes, there is something seriously wrong with that. For me, reading The Fountainhead (along with the rest of Rand's works) did not cause me to be depressed, but rather cured my depression! I was a somewhat angst-ridden teenager (not without cause) and after I was enabled by my newly-discovered rational philosophy to resolve all of the internal contradictions from my youth, I became much happier in every way. I even get along better with my parents now, even though I disagree with them more. Funny how that works.

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...