Dating & Love

[meganfiala]

Me, as a woman, I am competitive in debates, and have hence left all of my high school friends except for one. I don't think this is a quality of women in general. I beg to differ.

[DPW]

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!

That goes back to the distinction I made between the way two people discuss ideas and the fact that they discuss ideas. As you point out, some debates are silly, annoying, even destructive, but that does not imply that debates as such are bad for a romantic relationship. Just because one has had bad sex doesn't mean sex is bad!

[AwakeAndFree]

Debating is not romantic, no question about it. First, it's not physical. Second, it's a form of conflict, and conflict is not romantic.

However, to go from this to avoiding any kind of argument with a woman is plane crazy.

There is time for romance, and time for debate.

[meganfiala]

Plane crazy? or plain crazy??? lol

[AwakeAndFree]

A little of both.

And I guess now is too late to go back and fix it...

[Free Capitalist]

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.

[nimble]

Me, as a woman, I am competitive in debates, and have hence left all of my high school friends except for one.

ive noticed this alot. Do all of you like appositive phrases or is it just me. (no insults intended...i, myself (haha), just found it a little odd).

[Kellymeg80]

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?

[DPW]

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?

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.

[Kellymeg80]

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?

[DPW]

Wouldn't you say evading is part of rationalism qua rationalism, though?

Not necessarily. Remember, we use rationalism in two senses: as a philosophical position, and as a description of a certain psycho-epistemology, an automatized way of dealing with (some) abstractions. 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.

[KevinD]

Debating is not romantic, no question about it. First, it's not physical. Second, it's a form of conflict, and conflict is not romantic.

However, to go from this to avoiding any kind of argument with a woman is plain crazy.

There is time for romance, and time for debate.

I have something to say about this post, but I don't want to give the impression that I'm engaging in a dialogue with an attacker, so I've written it as article for my website:

The Possible Dream

[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?

[AwakeAndFree]

I have something to say about this post, but I don't want to give the impression that I'm engaging in a dialogue with an attacker, so I've written it as article for my website

That IS a piece of work. You attack my person without giving reason, after my attacking your views and giving a many detailed reasons.

Edited June 22, 2004 by erandror

[Betsy]

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?

What you may be missing is that rationalism is a deeply automatized psycho-epistemological habit. It is usually picked up very early in life and, by the time someone is aware of it, it is so ingrained in one's approach to life that it is extremely difficult to change.

Rationalism is a problem Dr. Peikoff admits he has struggled with his entire life. Listen to his lectures on "Objectivism: State of the Art" as he describes how he got completely off the track when he was writing the OPAR chapter on the virtues. He didn't mean to, he wasn't evading anything, but he just fell into an old, bad habit. To his credit, he eventually realized it and corrected it, but for most rationalists -- even the ones who are working hard not to be rationalists -- rationalism happens.

[Kellymeg80]

What you may be missing is that rationalism is a deeply automatized psycho-epistemological habit.  It is usually picked up very early in life and, by the time someone is aware of it, it is so ingrained in one's approach to life that it is extremely difficult to change. 

"Rationalism Happens". Now that's one for the Objectivist humor thread! Can you say "Bumper Sticker"? Ha. Anyway, down to the serious stuff.

You're right, I hadn't thought of it as a deeply automatized psycho-epistemplogical habit. I had forgotten that having been in the thick of it recently. Would you say there is any time at which this becomes a moral problem? I mean, a truely rational person could point out someone's rationalism to them, but that doesn't mean that they'll see it or know how to fix it.

[meganfiala]

I know that I recently discovered, that I have been rationalizing for a long time now, most of my school years. I am now 20 and just realizing now, that I 'trained my brain' all wrong. I have been out of school for 2 years now, and am just going back in the fall. I am extremely concerned about this, as I no longer trust much of the knowledge I have. I am worried I will not be able to learn properly and to apply my knowledge; I have always had a very hard time with essays and such. I have been pointed out my rationalism lately, and I do see it, but like Kelly said, how do you fix it??? Or is this something that demands more professional assistance.... I am a firm supporter of Objectivism, and I am very familiar with it as of the past 2 years. But my main problem has been overcoming the excitement of reading the works of Ayn Rand and getting down to business about applying it to my own life. Here's where my rationalism gets in the way. I am not usually ruled by my emotions, but lately, in my most down times, that's all I have left, unable to understand it all and to know how to fix the problem. In fact, seemingly more and more often, my emotions are not connected to my conscious activities, which has deepened my concern that something is wrong. Optimistically looking for your advice!

p.s. sorry if this has nothing to do with the original post, Kelly's post just made me think about all this.

[Betsy]

Would you say there is any time at which this becomes a moral problem? I mean, a truely rational person could point out someone's rationalism to them, but that doesn't mean that they'll see it or know how to fix it.

Rationalism is very, very hard to change. It is like a chronic disease that, with effort and attention, can be managed, but I don't know anyone who has it who has been "cured."

As to whether it's a moral issue, that depends on whether the person who has the problem does what he can to cope with it as best he knows how, or whether he doesn't give a damn and doesn't care if he is in good contact with reality or not.

I'll cut a rationalist who is struggling a lot of slack, but they can be such a problem to me and to themselves. When I dialog with a rationalist, it goes like this:

"What do you MEAN by that? Give me some examples."

"Give me a definition. That's only a differentia. What's the genus?"

"That definition doesn't match your examples. Etc."

At least a GOOD rationalist understands, and appreciates, why I am giving him such a hard time.

[nimble]

can you summarize a rationalist's characteristics please? I just wondered, what one is exactly, and why you would consider it a disease? I dont know exactly what it is, but it doesnt sound bad. I assume to be rational is a good quality, but maybe if you'd explain it I might get it.

[Betsy]

I know that I recently discovered, that I have been rationalizing for a long time now, most of my school years.

That's not the same thing as rationalism which, in colloquial terms, is the practice of "living in your head" in a world of ideas disconnected from the real world. It sounds more like you are floundering around for lack of intellectual direction. It's as if you are saying "Everything is wrong, and I'm all mixed up and I don't know what to do."

What I would suggest is to set yourself a simple, clear, achievable goal that really, really interests you and set about learning and doing what you need to in order to accomplish it. Maybe it's learning some aspect of history or economics or music or psychology. Maybe it's a writing or art or business project. Keep your goal clearly in mind as you seek to understand and know what you need to achieve your goal. If you find any confused or incorrect thinking, fix it as you go. That way it's a local problem you can cope with instead of being overwhelmed by everything.

[Betsy]

can you summarize a rationalist's characteristics please? I just wondered, what one is exactly, and why you would consider it a disease? I dont know exactly what it is, but it doesnt sound bad. I assume to be rational is a good quality, but maybe if you'd explain it I might get it.

Rationalism isn't at all the same thing as being rational. The term comes from the epistemological approach of the Rationalist philosophers like Descartes who scorned sense perception and, instead, tried to deduce what reality is from ideas.

Here's an example. The proper Objectivist approach to understanding why balls roll is to look at reality. Try to roll a ball, feel its shape, try to roll a cube and see what happens, etc. A rationalist approach would be to start with abstract ideas and try to deduce that the ball rolls from "A is A" or from the mathematical equation describing the surface of a sphere.

The best discussion of rationalism and what to do about it is in Dr. Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" course which I highly recommend.

[DPW]

The best discussion of rationalism and what to do about it is in Dr. Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" course which I highly recommend.

I'll second that. It wasn't until I listened to that course and put it into practice that I really understood Objectivism. The course title, in other words, is accurate.

[nimble]

Rationalism isn't at all the same thing as being rational.  The term comes from the epistemological approach of the Rationalist philosophers like Descartes who scorned sense perception and, instead, tried to deduce what reality is from ideas.

Here's an example.  The proper Objectivist approach to understanding why balls roll is to look at reality.  Try to roll a ball, feel its shape, try to roll a cube and see what happens, etc. A rationalist approach would be to start with abstract ideas and try to deduce that the ball rolls from "A is A" or from the mathematical equation describing the surface of a sphere. 

The best discussion of rationalism and what to do about it is in Dr. Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" course which I highly recommend.

thank you. That cleared it up quite well. Is it not possible though to arrive at the same conclusion through rationalism, even though it is obvious that there is an ungodly amount of room for error in rationalism?

[Betsy]

Is it not possible though to arrive at the same conclusion through rationalism, even though it is obvious that there is an ungodly amount of room for error in rationalism?

You can arrive at the same words and statements, but not the same conclusion. A proper conclusion ultimately proceeds from reality and is not deduced from floating abstractions.

Since rationalistic deductions are not based on reality at all, error is to be expected.

[nimble]

thank you once again