Kellymeg80
-
Posts
46 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Kellymeg80
-
-
As a philosophical position, you could argue that rationalism requires evasion (although I don't think that's true), but as a psycho-epistemological problem, rationalism is not under a person's direct volitional control and therefore cannot be said to indicate evasion.
Why would you argue that rationalism doesn't require evasion?
As a psycho-epistemologival problem, why wouldn't rationalism be under someone's direct control? Aren't we in charge of our own psycho-epistemologies? What am I missing here?
-
As stated, that would be a moral problem, but the moral problem isn't that he's a rationalist: it's that he's evading.
Wouldn't you say evading is part of rationalism qua rationalism, though?
-
I'm a hero-worshipper to the max. When I was younger, I saw heroism in success and acheivement in the business/career realm. I still do. I see it as so much more now, though and am having trouble working it all out. In the Objectivist realm particularly, heroism, to me, is partially consituted by an ability to come through life without becoming a rationalist. Also, I'm beginning to see a connection between heroism and learning not to define your self-esteem so narrowly as to let it depend on any one thing (career, money, success in relationships). I've allowed myself to be fooled into thinking people were heroic when really all they were was overstylized, rationalistic and unhealthily attached to career (something I see in a lot of Objectivists, particularly the men). I know all that what I'm saying isn't by any means a full-definition, but really just some floating ideas not yet grounded.
What constitutes a hero for you all? Anyone have "hero radar" next to your "rationalist detectors"?
-
Wow, I was just discussing this exact topic with my family last night! We couldn't come up with a punchline for this:
Why did the rationalist cross the road?
Anyone? Any takers?
Betsy, your virus jokes are great! I'm forwarding them and the Chicken contest to my family and friends. It's about time Objectivists learned how to laugh! Not enough of us do!
I have a philosophy joke that most people don't laugh at because they don't know what the heck I'm talking about. So if anyone here it familiar with Leibnitz's theory of Windowless Monads, I'll tell
-
Kellymeg, sounds like that "Oist" friend of yours is the one who needs to be taught some lessons, if he throws around "Oist" curse words. Recommend him this site, where I expect he will receive some serious trouncing from more integrated users here.
Notice the macho bravado in what I said, though it wasn't even implying that I'd be the one doing the trouncing. If you guys are right about men being more aggressive in debates, then this is the case where it's shown to be true, but for a good cause. Aggressive debating with people who need to be taught a lesson or two is highly valuable. So, let him "bring it" - I get seriously upset at people who twist Oism to their petty malicious purposes, and am always willing to engage them in (often) hostile and confrontational arguments. The interesting thing about people like that is that they usually lose extremely quickly, if challenged in the right way, since they are most of the time major rationalists (see the related thread on this forum).
So whereas, as a girl or a woman, you may simply be feeling "blah" about him, to just leave him alone to his own devices, I'm prone to confront him. I bet some guys here feel the same way.
Free Capitalist,
Yes, this "O'ist" friend does need to be taught some serious lessons. Unfortunately, a few of the people (such as myself) who could probably give him a serious trouncing get too annoyed with him to want to spend the time on it anymore. I responded to your PM. Respond back!
Betsy,
You said in an earlier post that rationalism was not a moral problem, but a bad habit in thinking. I don't think it is quite as clear-cut as that. For the most part, and especially as it applies to younger, less educated people, it is only a bad habit. But as you get older (and especially if you're an Objectivist), if you still use it as a defense mechanism and refuse to introspect and see your mistakes, then rationalism is a moral issue. In the case of this person (and others) I know, he's incredibly intelligent, well versed in philosophy and Objectivism, and simply will not try and root out his problems. He'd rather be "right" in the little world of his mind than fix is detachment from reality. This strikes me as a moral problem, not simply an error in thinking. Any thoughts on this, anyone?
-
Before you mentioned Desiree, I thought you might BE Desiree. She's going to the Art Students League and was at PSU too. Needless to say, I really like her and, from what you have written here, I would probably like you too.
Welcome to the board.
Ha, yes, Desiree and I have a lot in common. She lived down the hall from me freshman year at PSU and had Galt's oath on her dry-erase board. And a friendship was born : ) Desiree speaks well of you, Betsy. From your posts on rationalism, I can see I would like you too.
Thanks for the welome.
-
Don: I'm not saying that women are fragile creatures who can't handle arguments or debates, nor am I saying that arguments and debates cannot be of great value in certain contexts. I'm saying that arguments and debates are not romantic -- and that they serve no positive purpose in dating or in a relationship.
You may think that your arguing and debating is not about trying to change her; that you're only attacking her ideas, not her as a person. But what you intend and the way your message is received are likely very, very different.
We as men tend to be highly competitive with one another. It's one of the ways in which we bond: We jokingly insult each other, we wrestle and fight, we argue and debate -- about everything -- and it's not only not a big deal to us, we respect each other more afterward. It brings us closer together.
This behavior is often mystifying to women. They don't do it with each other, and they sure as hell don't want us to do it with them.
Whatever it is that's so important that you need to impress upon her, I guarantee it's not nearly as important in her eyes as how well you listen to and respect her words and opinion.
Ladies, do you agree?
I agree. I enjoy a good intellectual debate, but was recently caught in the middle of two of my friends arguing about a fairly small philosophical point...FOR 3 HOURS. I thought I was going to pull my hair out, especially when my female friend and I tried to put our two or three cents in and had insults such as "intrinsicist" and "rationalist" thrown at us. The one guy participating was defending his point to the death even when it was obvious he was wrong. It was all about his self-esteem and him being right. It had almost nothing to do with what was actually right once he got all tied up in "winning". I almost politely got up and walked out before the guy realized what he was doing.
As a woman (and moreover as myself, though this point carries for most women I know), I am not competetive in debate. I am willing to have a discussion of ideas and I often do. There is a point, though, at which the there is going to be no agreement. At that point you just decide if it's an important enough issue to walk away from the friendship/relationship for or you just put it behind you and stay friends. In most cases, it's been the latter for me. In the case I mentioned above, I would have been more than happy to just put the disagreement behind us and stay friends, except that I was being verbally assaulted with "Objectivist swear words" such as "intrisicist" and "rationalist" without any backup whatsoever. I wanted to say "What is this, Objectivist middle school"? It just got immature! I didn't really feel attacked as a person (mostly, I think, because my self-esteem is high enough to not really care about some random guy calling me an intrisicist), I was just annoyed and disgusted!
-
Don: I'm not saying that women are fragile creatures who can't handle arguments or debates, nor am I saying that arguments and debates cannot be of great value in certain contexts. I'm saying that arguments and debates are not romantic -- and that they serve no positive purpose in dating or in a relationship.
You may think that your arguing and debating is not about trying to change her; that you're only attacking her ideas, not her as a person. But what you intend and the way your message is received are likely very, very different.
We as men tend to be highly competitive with one another. It's one of the ways in which we bond: We jokingly insult each other, we wrestle and fight, we argue and debate -- about everything -- and it's not only not a big deal to us, we respect each other more afterward. It brings us closer together.
This behavior is often mystifying to women. They don't do it with each other, and they sure as hell don't want us to do it with them.
Whatever it is that's so important that you need to impress upon her, I guarantee it's not nearly as important in her eyes as how well you listen to and respect her words and opinion.
Ladies, do you agree?
I don't understand this statement at all. You can't learn from the other person if you accept that they are as they are?
Of course there is a tremendous amount that we can learn from a romantic relationship. But there's a difference between what can be learned and what can be taught.
Megan: I'm a little confused about what you're asking. I think that neither men nor women should try to change each other. It's one of the few truly "uni-sex" principles which I would say applies equally to men and women. How do you see it?
I agree. I enjoy a good intellectual debate, but was recently caught in the middle of two of my male friends arguing about a fairly small philosophical point...FOR 3 HOURS. I thought I was going to pull my hair out, especially when my female friend and I tried to put our two or three cents in and had insults such as "intrinsicist" and "rationalist" thrown at us. The one guy was defending his point to the death even when it was obvious he was wrong. It was all about his self-esteem and him being right. It had almost nothing to do with what was actually right once he got all tied up in "winning"
-
AIM: asubbrown
Yahoo: eudaimonist
Eudaimonist....that's a great name! I've used it before on a different site!
-
Welcome to the board, Kelly! Hopefully I will meet you (and Eran) at OCON 2005.
Thanks Ash. Look forward to meeting you and Eran at OCON 2005 too!
-
Welcome to the board, Kelly! Hopefully I will meet you (and Eran) at OCON 2005.
Thanks Ash. Look forward to meeting you and Eran too!
-
Welcome Kelly!
Nice to meet a person with positive energies!
I've always admired Swing. Never seen it in real life though, only in movies and Television. As far as I know there is no swing culture in Israel.
Anyway, I plan to arrive to NJ this August (but I don't know if I'll be staying). Will be happy to hear about Objectivist clubs there.
Planning on OCON 2005 too.
Hi Eran,
Thanks for appreciating my positive energy!
There's a pretty active Objectivist scene in the NYC metro area. You can check out the NY Heroes Society at www.nyheroes.org. That group is run by Objectivists and a lot of area Objectivists participate in it. Their hikes are always fun and a great challenge. Beyond that, there are just a lot of Objectivists in the city who for the most part know each other, so if you meet a couple, you can probably meet a couple more, and so on
Also, a guy named Lou Esposito runs this board. http://groups.msn.com/NYCObjectivistSocialGatherings/
Lou and Co. organize some fun gatherings every once in a while, though they've been dormant for a few months.
So are you arriving in the US to stay or just for a visit? In any case, let me know when you're here if you're interested in getting to know people. I'm in the city every weekend.
Kelly
-
Welcome to the forum, Kelly! I look forward to your input. It's nice to have a young woman who grew-up with Objectivism.
Thank you Janet! I look forward to contributing to the conversation!
-
I don't understand this joke. Should I attribute it to ignorance of Rationalism, or of Sex?
Perhaps attribute it to ignorance of sex with rationalists :-P
-
Random thought:
Q. What's the worst thing about having sex with a rationalist?
A. It just sucks.
You don't know the HALF of it!
Ohhh, the double entendre there just kills me!
*goes off laughingly*
-
Betsy-What you have been saying about rationalism really speaks to me!
I used to think I didn't like to debate ideas (especially with Objectivists), but realized the reason was that that most of the people I was debating with were rationalists. Since then, I've learned to walk away if someone is being so rationalistic that they're no longer a value. DPW, do you think frustration with rationalism might be a reason for some Objectivist women who don't want to discuss ideas? Betsy, as someone who really seems to have a handle on this, what do you do in a case where you find you are talking with someone you value highly but is being very rationalistic? I have found no way to get people (even loved ones) out of rationalism. It seems that is something Objectivists can become very invested in, almost as a support to their self esteem. Rationalistic Objectivists seem to be willing to defend their point (very emotionally, sometimes!) to the death, because if they're wrong, they're worried that they are wrong.bad/evil as a person. Strangely, though, this is often the only thing rationalist Objectivists are emotional on. Trendwise, rationalistic Objectivists seem to be very unemotional. Any ideas on the connection there, anyone?
I know I put a lot of questions out, but this is a VERY important subject for me!
Kelly
-
Hi nimble,
You're certainly welcome to come to NYC anytime. We've got a great group of Objectivists here if I do say so myself :-D
Thanks for the info DPW. I've always wanted to get down to DC for some swing. Maybe I'll take a trip with some of my swing dancing Objectivist pals
I'll let you know when I do get down there! Right now, I'm saving my time off and my money for the 2005 ARI OCON Kelly
-
Hi all,
Kelly here
23, living in NJ. I have a BA in music history/theory from Penn State and am currently studying fine art at the Art Student's League of NY and Graphic Design at Gibbs College. I'm an arts lover (in case you couldn't tell) and appreciate all things beautiful. I enjoy getting out and enjoying life, not just talking about it, but a good philosophical discussion is enjoyable, too.
I enjoy dancing (swing especially), reading, painting, drawing and broadway shows among other things.
Other things about me. I restarted the Objectivist Club at PSU my freshman year there and helped to run it with my friends Desiree and Rick. I was introduced to Objectivism by my parents. I have been an Objectivist for 10 years and an atheist my whole life
Anyone here from the NYC metro area? Talking online is nice, but meeting in the real is better!
Kelly
-
My AIM Screename is BuggingBunny :-P
-
Kira, Kira all the way for my favorite female character. Her passion is evident in everything she does, in how she strives for life and her own happiness. I was almost named for her and will instead give the name to my daughter should I have one.
Favorite male character, I have to say Fransisco. He is most romantically portrayed, beautiful, fully human man in Rand's books. After reading AS at 13, I named my teddy bear after him! (Girls, I'm sure you hear me!
) I would give Hank Rearden a second place for his drive and passion for life.
What constitutes a hero in real life?
in Ethics
Posted
Betsy, I definately have similar qualities in my description of a personal hero.
Would you be willing to do that whole 'nother post? I think I've gotten better at spotting the "fools gold" out, but my radar is so blurry (from bad experiences, I think) that I'm not sure I know how to see the real stuff!