Steve Carlson

Hello Andromeda, Your post reminded me of my own efforts to improve my self-image. Early this year, I realized that I experienced a good deal of anxiety from worrying about how others saw me. I was concerned that a decision of mine about what action to take in a situation would make someone angry with me. Over time I came to realize that the fallout from this preoccupation affected almost every area of my life, and most every decision I would make. By observing those around me, I am discovering that this fear of disapproval is wide-spread. At least in my case it resulted from a childhood filled with injunctions to obey the various authority figures, that doing things they didn't like was bad and should be cause for shame. I tried to make others happy, but it brought me nothing but sadness in the end. For me, the first step in improving myself was reading Rand's works. Her books taught me a lot about the heights a man can reach. Her ideas convinced me that no matter how dreary and unexceptional my surroundings might be, that there are people I can find who I would be proud to call a friend, and that I don't want to bestowthat title on anyone unless they earn it. After that I read Nathaniel Branden's Honoring the Self and The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem. While the books did not specifically address the situation you describe, much of what he writes is of immense value to understanding what self-esteem is and includes helpful advice on how to improve your self-esteem. I recommend those books to you as a resource that may speed the process of improving your own self-esteem. The progress I have made with his books is significant. While there is still work to be done, my anxiety level is much lower than it used to be. More importantly, I understand what things make me anxious and I have developed strategies for dealing with those situations. Lastly, I want to comment on your concern with friendships. One of the most important things I have learned is this: When you betray your own values to make someone else happy, you are guaranteed to lose a piece of your self. Beyond that, someone who insists that you contradict your values to avoid their disapproval is not someone you want to spend time with regardless. There are times when I feel lonely too. I think it's only natural when I hold high standards for the people I want to spend time with. When I feel lonely, I remind myself that I would prefer to feel that lonliness, rather than spend time with people I hold in low regard. I will be patient, I will stay true to my values, and in time I will build friendships that I will cherish. I hope you will too. All the best, Steve Carlson

I want to point out the errors in GWDS's post: When was theft legalized? I also, at this point, have problems with some pieces of Rand's view of lower animals as opposed to humans. I will note that some animals seem to have an extremely primitve ability to devise a tool (e.g., a monkey using a stick to knock bananas off trees) to obtain some value. Yet, the animals have shown no ability, generation to generation, to build a larger and larger repository of knowledge or advance tool making skills beyond the most basic, primitive ability. It is in that sense that lower animals are distinctly different from humans. Yes, scientists have aided animals in this process. On their own, these creatures have no hope of attaining such feats. This is incorrect. Reading a legal version of her work, on pages 22-23 she writes that "For man, the basic means of survival is reason." Repeat: Reason is man's basic means of survival. There are other means of man's survival, such as the functioning of his heart and lungs. That is an important distinction that musn't be dropped out. Remember to keep the context. Yes, it is possible for an individual to live by enslaving others to produce what he uses to survive. Examples are readily available. But those values must be produced before he can loot them. Someone uses his reason to produce those looted values. The slaves are not mindless lumps of clay. In addition, this is a poor example. The individual is said to be "useless", while he clearly is quite useful when it comes to keeping others as his slaves, otherwise the example loses its intended application. There is no explanation of how Rand's view is wrong. Wow! I'm stunned that such an error is possible to a person. I'll add the missing context and explain the basic idea here. For part of Atlas, Dagny views Francisco as a worthless playboy not becuase of his wealth, but because of how he uses that wealth. In her view, Francisco betrays positive values by his conduct. Rand does not view the railroad engineers to all be of a higher order than Francisco. This is where I must question how carefully GWDS read the book. There were examples of railroad employees with good values as well as examples of those with poor values. GWDS seems to believe Rand took a class based approach to the value she saw in men, and the answer is she did not. She views each man as an individual who should be evaluated on his own merit, or lack thereof. And apples really are oranges! Steve Carlson

I want to resopnd to why I believe the above generally holds true. In my life, I was taught several things: 1) Do what your parents ask of you. 2) Listen to your teachers. 3) Listen to authority figures. The overall message was, "do as you are told"and "don't trust yourself, trust those in positions of authority". How did I work to achieve that? By looking out, and trying to learn what others wanted of me. By trying to see how I could make them happy, or at least avoid making them angry. I still did things for myself, but inside the box left untouched by the expectations of others. Because I was taught to fear and feel ashamed of losing the approval of those in authority, it was only natural for me to seek happiness by gaining the approval of others (whether or not it was what I really wanted, or whether they deserved anything from me). It was only recently that I learned this about myself. That even though I loved Rand and her ideas, I subconsciously would thwart myself, always trying to avoid that pain that would result by taking actions that might give other people cause to be upset with me (even sacrificing my values in the process). In addition to learning a lot about myself in this regard, it gave me new insight into the actions of other people around me. That's not to say that everyone acts by the same motivations. That's clearly not the case. Just the same, it is crystal clear to me why people would find a sense of happiness by helping others whom they may not care about in the culture of today, given what some (and I suggest many) of us are taught, and what is reinforced from many sides. When society tells you to seek to be "accepted" by others, it can not be a surprise that many people try to do just that. And it should be no surprise that people can gain some sense of happiness from that. What are they shown as an alternative? The hedonist who cares nothing for others, who defies his parents, his teachers, the authority figures, his peers, who refuses to fit in. They don't see any other way to be happy. After all, doing for yourself is "greedy". To huddle with the crowd and gain their approval, or to stand alone and be at war with the world. This is the false alternative that I believe traps and confuses many good people. They just don't see that they can be independent and be happy. And that doing so does not confine them to a life of lonliness, isolation, and bitterness. Also consider the courage and independence required to be independent; the possible ostracism as well as the impact on ones world-view of accepting the fact that you are not wrong, all those other people are (the tendency to accept a malevolent worldview). And so I urge you not to take at face-value any notion that community service is the key to happiness, or be confused by the findings. Over the long run, those who live to satisfy others whom they don't genuinely care for will become an empty shell. I know people who fit that description quite comfortably. They gain a moments feeling of happiness here and there, but they are not happy with themselves, and it's obvious.

This is a very important issue, since the presentation of ideas does influence the listeners receptivity to them. My approach differs when dealing with friends versus a curious stranger or aquaintance. Ayn Rand's ideas are so central to my life that most anyone I deal with more than a few times, especially those who become friends, will learn of my admiration for her and her ideas. I will not raise the issues of Rand or her philosophy unless it is appropriate given the flow of conversation. Pushing Rand onto people, in my mind, is essentially the same as running around "spreading the holy word". If I gauge that the person 1) could become an Objectivist with exposure to her ideas, 2) could be interested, and 3) the conversation is appropriate for it, then I will breach the subject. I strongly believe in promoting the virtue of Rand's ideas, rather than focusing on what wrong with America, the world, certain people, etc. That means taking the aspects of Objectivism, Rand's life, and so on, that I am most passionate about, and bringing that into the conversation. In other words, I ask myself "Why do I love Objectivist ideas and Ayn Rand as a person?" That's what I want to get across to the other person. In my view, if you have a chance of turning them on to Rand, they already know about the negative things going on in today's world. A positive message is far more inspiring than a negative one. I will offer one of Rand's novels as a gift to a friend once I believe it is proper, considering the depth of the relationship and what I perceive their receptivity to be. For a friend who isn't a big reader, I will purchase Anthem. For an avid reader, the choice is Atlas. I prefer offering a novel, given my experience that many people are turned off by philosophy in general. It's no surprise with what most of philosophy offers them. The novels offer them an exposure to Rand's ideas in a more appealing format for most.

Wonderful pictures. I am impressed with the qualities I can see in your pictures (such as lighting, space, color, etc). Steve

Your responses are terrific. Now it is clear to me. The roadblock was an unclear understanding of the term validation, and a lack of clarity about the fact that validation comes later in the process than I had thought. Wonderful. Thank you. Steve

I imagine the resolution my question is a simple matter, but it still eludes me. I have reviewed OPAR again, read some Aristotle, and read about logical and mathematical axioms, to no avail. Assistance here would be greatly appreciated. Following OPAR, and validating the axioms, existence comes first. This makes sense to me. The part that gets me is the use of perception (the self-evident) as validation of axioms, before perception (validity of the senses) itself has been validated. The specific question then is: Why can I rely on perception to validate existence before, hierarchically, perception has been validated? I suspect the nature of axioms, as opposed to proofs, holds the answer.

Hello Stephen, I only seek to get a firm grasp on Objectivist metaphysics, sufficient to be able to intelligently deal with my own questions pertaining to philosophy. For me, it is not sufficient to have a loose grasp of such important ideas. Are you certain about this? It would seem that without existence, one can not validate anything else. This relates to the idea that without existence, there can be no consciousness. Am I misinterpreting your remarks? I appreciate your concern. My primary focus is not metaphysics per se, but to move in proper order through Objectivism (to the extent that there is a hierarchical requirement). Only when I have the basics down, can I move to the rest of Objectivism. I am aware of the dangers of rationalism from listening to Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism CD course. What approach would you suggest? I appreciate what you have to say on the issue. Also, thank you for the suggested reading. Cheers, Steve

My question is directed to those with a detailed understanding of Objectivist metaphysics. I have previously read through OPAR. Now I am working from the beginning of the text, with the goal of carefully and fully validating Objectivism (assuming I find no errors). My confusion centers on method, and ensuring that I am not assuming anything in error as I progress. Two questions: 1. In your view are all the axioms (exisence, identity, causality, consciousness, volition) validated in hierarchical order, at the same time (the idea of interdependence), or both? I know there must be some hierarchy (e.g., existence before consciousness), but is the process strictly hierarchical? 2. What about the Law of the Excluded Middle, The Law of Contradiction, and so on. At what point can those be brought in and applied? It seems they are operable from the very beginning. If so, do they require validation as well? I will briefly restate to ensure clarity. Essentially, the first question relates to the proper order of evaluation, while the second question relates to taking all the necessary steps as I progress. Finally, I plan to obtain more texts dealing with Objectivist metaphysics, and other metaphysical systems. Do you have any recommendations along those lines? I could see my difficulty resulting from a lack of texts offering a wide range of perspectives, or at least different explanations of the same ideas. Cheers, Steve

Hello Cerebro, Welcome to the board. I am heartened that you are investigating Objectivism. It is wonderful that you are keeping an active mind and investigating new ideas. Below are a couple of reading suggestions. They will point you toward the parts of Objectivism that bear most directly on religious belief. 1. The Objectivist metaphysics, found in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR). It is at the base of the Objectivist hierarchy, where Objectivism and religious belief first diverge. 2. Gaining a good grounding in specifically what Objectivists mean by rational selfishness. The Virtue of Selfishness is a great place to start. 3. Reviewing the content in OPAR that deals with "Life as the standard of value" p 206-220 4. Reviewing Ayn Rand's breakthrough realiziation that the arbitrary is neither true nor false, also in OPAR p. 163-167 The above recommendations are suggested starting points for your investigation. If your interest grows, I recommend a full reading of OPAR to truly grasp all the ins and outs of Objectivism. All the best, Steve

Hello Michael, First off, congrats! You've clearly put in a lot of time and thought considering philosophical issues. Allow me to offer my perspective on your question: "Why is it that I'm getting so much resistance?" I would suggest you ask yourself a different question as means to an answer: What was required of you to get to where you are today? Both in terms of your understanding of philosophy, and how you live your life. How much time, effort, courage, etc. was required of you? If you get a good understanding of how much effort and courage your journey has required (and still requires), you will see why many people are hesitant to even begin such a journey. It's also possible that other people may not see the rewards of taking a path similar to yours. They may have invested a lot in not fully investigating the three core questions that philosophy is tasked to answer. Or they are convinced philosophy can offer no answers. I come across that often. They can't say why they think there are no answers, but they're convinced there are no answers. Or they are afraid to stand apart from the herd. In the past, I also took steps to introduce my friends and family to Rand's work and Objectivist ideas. That process was instructive to me, as I came to know more about other people's thinking (or lack of it), and why, without exception, they were uninterested. I completely understand your situation. At times, I very much want to tell the people I care about or come into contact with about how great Objectivism is. Harder still is that I don't know a single Objectivist personally, and yet there is so much to talk about. It's natural to want to share what gives you satisfaction and happiness with others. Now, I only talk Objectivism with someone who expresses an interest, and only to the extent that they are interested. If find that if I go beyond the level of their interest, they have always (so far) lost what interest they had. In casual conversation, I will say "I don't agree" (at minimum) in response to a comment related to philosophical issues with which I disagree. But I never expect that I will convince anyone of anything (or that they are willing to be convinced). My rule has been that if I have the slightest impression I'm being preachy, I am saying too much and will turn people off. I recommend you be as patient as possible. In time, people will notice that you "are different" becuase of how you carry yourself, your values, and your level of happiness (assuming you're sticking with Objectivism). The curious who are still open to ideas with start asking questions. I have been approached casually by three people in the past few months. None have bitten yet, but the interest was clearly genuine. My best to you, Steve

As has been stated previously, Hero is visually stunning. One can admire the committment to excellence many of the characters personify. You can admire the relentless pursuit of values. But which values?? If you elect to see Hero, do not go into it looking for an actual hero. The movie equates a pursuit of unity and heriosm, assuming that unity must be better than disunity. (I will not provide details to avoid spoiling the movie for those who have yet to see it.) As I watched Hero I thought of the wonders that befell China after it was unified under communist rule. 65 million dead there. Or the unity that produced over 100 million dead in the former Soviet Union after the Bolsheviks dispatched the White Army. Or the wonders of unity if we would only bow down to the United Nations and let them "help" the worlds most capitalist-starved nations. Of course, I am not arguing the opposite; that unity is necessarily a negative thing. The question is: unity *for what*? to achieve *what values*? That is precisely where Hero is silent. The movie couples brilliant visuals with very little thought, very few ideas. I can not recommend Hero to you. Although I appreciated the visuals, I would have preferred to spend my time watching a movie packed, instead, with wonderful values. Cheers, Steve

Thank you for your assessment Bowser. Now it's just a question of which to get first... Steve

Hello, My question comes in two parts: First, does anyone have familiarity with the Objectivism Through Induction CD (Peikoff) set offered by ARI bookstore? I am concerned with the usefulness of the material, as well as the quality of recording. Secondly, what are your experiences with other audio based products offered through ARI bookstore? Some of the titles are of interest, though I would like to be confident of the quality and usefullness of the content before making a purchasing decision. Cheers, Steve

Hello, First, I want to express appreciation to everyone involved in the creation and continued operation of this website. The opportunity to communicate with others who admire Rand's philosophy, and get a smattering of the objections raised is extremely valuable. Second, I want to communicate how impressed I am with the overall level of discussion here (though it's only natural, given the emphasis placed upon reason). About 3 years ago, I introduced myself to Rand's work and ideas. I had decided to read a novel, as a relaxing change to my usual pattern of taking on more serious material. Browsing through the bookstore's shelves I came upon Rand's novels, and read the back cover of each paperback. I knew by the book descriptions that something was very different about her work. I was most drawn to Atlas Shrugged: "The astounding story of a man who said he would stop the motor of the world-and did". What an incredible concept for a novel. Even though it was obvious AS was not the typical casual read, I couldn't see buying anything else at that point. Rand's ideas have truly changed my life. I have read her novels, OPAR, VOS, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Philosophy: Who Needs It. I have also read Branden's Six Pillars. I previously was a Republican, but no more. Both major parties are rotten, and offer nothing but a slow slide toward destruction. Presently, I am rereading OPAR, while referencing her other works, and occassionally this website for further insight and to see her ideas presented in different words. I look forward to opportunities to discuss many aspects of Objecitivism with other forum members. There are so many things to discuss, which makes the entire process exciting and enlightening. Cheers and all the best, Steve