New to Objectivism

[Zedic]

A little over two years ago, I broke off ties with a Christian who was trying to convert me for the past 10 months. He parted with the advice, "You have two choices: you can either be a slave to Jesus and enjoy everlasting life, or you can be a slave to yourself (Satan) and spend eternity in hell."

I didn't say anything back to him, but I left with the conviction that I'm not going to be any body's slave. I believe in freedom and happiness and that's what I set out to find. I've held beliefs on total opposite ends of the spectrum more than once in my life. I was raised a theist but became an atheist in my mid teens. I lived under the custody of a New Age mystic for 10 months and was indoctrinated with many weird notions which I believed out of hope that there's some sort of empirical truth to them that I would later discover. That led me to explore Hermeticism and the Occult since the teachings said, "if you do this, you will get these results." I was very intrigued with the idea of raising demons and asking them questions about the nature of reality, but it never quite worked out as I hoped.

Most recently I have found Objectivism, thanks to my friend and former room mate (now current neighbor) who introduced me to Rand's ideas. He came back from a trip having read "For the New Intellectual" and started telling me crazy ideas like, it's possible to have a logically consistent philosophy (I lost all hope in that after abandoning my mystical beliefs and floating around aimlessly with no real philosophy for nearly 2 years). I'm almost done reading "For the New Intellectual" right now. After my experience with many Mystics of the Mind, I totally ate up her writings about the the Witch Doctors. I now see the world in a whole new way. Just yesterday I picked up a children's book teaching children the "virtue" of feeling sorry for the thief and helping those who don't deserve it. It sheds new light on how I picked up the Kantian like ethics I did through life. I never did like the idea of "duty" anyway. It always felt like such a burden and literally ate away inside.

I'm still learning about the principles of Objectivism and I don't feel I know enough to say "I am an Objectivist". But I'm certainly leaning that way. I fully embrace a lot of what she has to say since they're convictions I've felt myself. Other ideas I'm still wrestling to either understand properly, or feel more comfortable accepting (my old way of thinking still influences me to feel guilty about thinking certain things). I'm converting my old values over to my new way of thinking, by either changing the reason why I value them or rejecting out right. Overall, Objectivism's lessons have truly given new meaning to my life. I feel Objectivism literally saved my life. Without this new philosophy I'd still be lost not knowing how to make my way through life which is conducive to happiness and productivity. I just needed someone to tell me to live in reality and show me how to do it.

[Zip]

you can either be a slave to Jesus and enjoy everlasting life, or you can be a slave to yourself (Satan) and spend eternity in hell.

LOL! he didn't did he? LOL that's the funniest thing I've read today.

Welcome

[softwareNerd]

Welcome to OO.net

[Zedic]

LOL! he didn't did he? LOL that's the funniest thing I've read today.

It's funny now, but at the time I felt like I was treading into unknown territory. I was still deeply influenced by mystical thinking at the time and the idea of a God and a Satan were still very real possibilities to me. I wasn't sure if I was damning my soul for eternity or not, but I felt being true to myself was more important than letting myself succumb to his fear mongering. It wasn't the first time I stood on a the precipice of being true to myself or letting the religious rhetoric of fear and death persuade me. I'm glad I made the right choice both times.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Zedic

[Zip]

It's funny now, but at the time I felt like I was treading into unknown territory. I was still deeply influenced by mystical thinking at the time and the idea of a God and a Satan were still very real possibilities to me. I wasn't sure if I was damning my soul for eternity or not, but I felt being true to myself was more important than letting myself succumb to his fear mongering. It wasn't the first time I stood on a the precipice of being true to myself or letting the religious rhetoric of fear and death persuade me. I'm glad I made the right choice both times.

I've never been in that situation, thankfully...

Well that's not entirely true. we've all been bribed or coerced with something like that.

[Chops]

LOL that's the funniest thing I've read today.

That is some awesome fear-mongering. The last resort of those who are incapable of reason.

If you liked "For the New Intellectual," then you would undoubtedly like the sources of those essays: Rand's fiction. Those speeches in the books are key moments in her fiction, but reading the entire stories is quite enjoyable.

And, of course, welcome.

[IchorFigure]

I'm still learning about the principles of Objectivism and I don't feel I know enough to say "I am an Objectivist". But I'm certainly leaning that way.

Hi and welcome. This is something I can definitely relate to. I've read almost all of Rand's fiction/non-fiction, and some of LP. While I understand and agree with much of it I don't think I understand enough to consider myself an Objectivist, and I'm very careful not to represent my opinions in day-to-day conversations as such. I still want to read OPAR if I can get around to it soon.

[Zedic]

After dealing with some of the members on the board, I question the rationality of Objectivists' minds, which is sad. As someone trying to learn more about it and really taking a lot of Rand's principles to heart, I'm given the 3rd degree for every word I utter and absolutely no consideration. It doesn't bother me that much, just a bit aggravating. But people wonder why Objectivism isn't taught in Universities. If this forum is a good representation of this philosophical movement then no wonder. No biggie. My mind is worth more than the intellectual pigheadedness I've encountered on this forum.

[khaight]

After dealing with some of the members on the board, I question the rationality of Objectivists' minds, which is sad. As someone trying to learn more about it and really taking a lot of Rand's principles to heart, I'm given the 3rd degree for every word I utter and absolutely no consideration. It doesn't bother me that much, just a bit aggravating. But people wonder why Objectivism isn't taught in Universities. If this forum is a good representation of this philosophical movement then no wonder. No biggie. My mind is worth more than the intellectual pigheadedness I've encountered on this forum.

There is a sad tendency, particularly among younger Objectivists, to ignore other people's cognitive contexts in intellectual exchange. Rand is powerful intellectual medicine and it can take many years to properly understand and integrate her ideas in a first-handed way. I wouldn't take any web forum per se as representative of any philosophical or intellectual movement. You can find a stunning amount of pigheadedness and anti-intellectuality on many Christian web discussion fora -- but their movement also had Thomas Aquinas.

I'm sorry it seems you've had bad experiences with people here. My advice is to focus on understanding the ideas for yourself. Don't worry about what other people tell you -- follow your own mind and your own best judgment.

[Zedic]

Thanks for your encouraging words khaight. I thought my posting abilities were disabled, but I see it came through. No matter, I consumed my thoughts with solving problems in my physics homework soon afterward which made me feel better. I do look forward to reading more of Rand's work and more fully assimilating it all into my mind. I have and always will follow my own mind, and did pretty well considering the massive opposition waged against me. I will return to lurking for a bit.

[KevinDW78]

When you refuse to accept the validity of one of Objectivism's axioms, you aren't going to get very far with other Objectivsts.

[LaszloWalrus]

After dealing with some of the members on the board, I question the rationality of Objectivists' minds, which is sad.

Internet fora in general are not a good way to learn about philosophy. Discussion often devolve into polemics, which tends to foster a rationalistic approach to dealing with issues. (By a "rationalistic approach" I mean an approach that detaches Objectivist ideas from reality, i.e. one that treats ideas as merely relations among other ideas).

Remember also that to understand Objectivism really well takes years of study; it is not enough merely to read Ayn Rand's works — one must work actively to connect her ideas to one's own knowledge and to reality and to uproot one's previous bad methodology. I certainly suffered (and suffer) from not having rooted out rationalistic tendencies I have, and I'm sure my experience is not atypical.

My suggestion: read those works of Ayn Rand that you haven't read. Then read Leonard Peikoffs Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. If Objectivism still appeals to you, you should consider either enrolling in the Objectivist Academic Center:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag..._academic_index

or getting Leonard Peikoff's lecture courses Understanding Objectivism and Objectivism Through Induction. They should give you a good reality-based (rather than rationalistic) understanding of Objectivism.

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LP31M

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LP53M

[Zip]

After dealing with some of the members on the board, I question the rationality of Objectivists' minds, which is sad. As someone trying to learn more about it and really taking a lot of Rand's principles to heart, I'm given the 3rd degree for every word I utter and absolutely no consideration. It doesn't bother me that much, just a bit aggravating. But people wonder why Objectivism isn't taught in Universities. If this forum is a good representation of this philosophical movement then no wonder. No biggie. My mind is worth more than the intellectual pigheadedness I've encountered on this forum.

I'm going to be pigheadded here and stand by my principals. When you say things like

Not erasing one's memory, but being open to the possibility that anything you know may be wrong.

that is not a throwaway sentence. It is a sneaky and backhanded attempt to inject Kantian stupidity into a known and knowable world. A IS A, it is known it is true and it is valid.

You regard being challenged on assumptions you make about a philosophy that you admit you are just learning as being given the third degree why not pony up and admit that you don't know it all and accept some guidance? There isn't a person here who hasn't been schooled for a mistake. Most of the time it involves "the third degree" which leads the person to understanding the error.

Grab some parts and get off your high horse, you don't know it all.

[Zedic]

Zip, you're the one who needs to be schooled. Have you read all of Kant's work? Have you studied any of Walter Kaufmann's works on German philosophy? If you haven't, then you're only regurgitating a 2nd had account. If you haven't, how would you really know what is Kantian philosophy and what isn't? If what I said sounds Kantian, then you're only partially right; it's the implementation of sound scientific rationale. But what my statement has nothing to do with is the notion that the world is not knowable. It's about how to know the world.

[JMeganSnow]

It's not Kantian as far as I know, it's Skepticism. Throwing Kant's name around is kind of ridiculous.

Insisting that something *may* be wrong, regardless of what it is, regardless of whether you have any basis for thinking it might be wrong, is a bad epistemological method. It's an arbitrary assertion and Objectivism completely rejects *any* arbitrary assertion.

Now, if you have some evidence that points to why a given statement is wrong, you have every reason to insist that people accept your evidence. But insisting that they accept the "possibility" of error without evidence is silly.

With the axioms, however, there is a problem: the existence of evidence *depends* on the axioms being true and immutable. If A is A could be wrong, A doesn't necessarily have to be A and thus a given fact can't be shown to necessarily lead to a certain rational conclusion. So accepting that the axioms might possibly be wrong is actually contra-reason in addition to being bad epistemological methodology.

[Zedic]

JMeganSnow, even though what you're saying makes sense, in practice it's not necessarily that clear cut. Even though it looked like the planets traveled around the Earth, further investigation showed that it's not true. It looked like the planets traveled around the Sun in perfect circles, but the work of Kepler showed that they're in fact ellipses. Newtonian mechanics looked to be right and the end of the story, but Einstein showed that the world is much different than what we imagined. History has proven that accepted paradigms about what existence is has inevitably been turned on its head upon further and deeper investigation. Similarly, what some members may conclude about me in their knee jerk gut reactions may not necessarily be true. Thus why I cautioned skepticism - something which Objectivism doesn't encourage. It encourages a "high self esteem" which in this context means "I know what I saw so I must be right, so how dare he caution skepticism!"

[JMeganSnow]

JMeganSnow, even though what you're saying makes sense, in practice it's not necessarily that clear cut. Even though it looked like the planets traveled around the Earth, further investigation showed that it's not true. It looked like the planets traveled around the Sun in perfect circles, but the work of Kepler showed that they're in fact ellipses. Newtonian mechanics looked to be right and the end of the story, but Einstein showed that the world is much different than what we imagined. History has proven that accepted paradigms about what existence is has inevitably been turned on its head upon further and deeper investigation.

No--because the mechanics of particular existents is not the same as "what existence is"--the earlier assertions were not proven, they were just guesses based on spotty observation--well, except for Newtonian mechanics, which are true in a very limited context.

The Law of Non-contradiction, however, is the logical basis of all knowledge. It is not a technical fact based on limited observation but an abstract truth that is necessitated by the existence of facts and of observation. You cannot find facts or make new observations that would obviate Identity because those facts and observations would have to HAVE identity for them to prove ANYTHING.

It's the difference between metaphysics and science, really. Science deals with concrete particulars and tries to formulate the rules of their interactions, whereas metaphysics only deals with the broadest of abstractions. Metaphysics won't tell you *what* exists or how it works, only that *something* exists and that whatever it is, that's what it is. Without a firm metaphysical grounding, science cannot exist--and this is precisely why science can't overturn metaphysics. In fact, in some philosophies, the two aren't even connected.

Take chess as an analogy: a brilliant chess master may be able to come up with new gambits that would allow him to win in circumstances that were believed to be impossible, but no chess master, no matter how brilliant, can come up with a gambit that would allow him to take two turns in a row--because then what he'd be playing wouldn't be chess any more.

[softwareNerd]

Thus why I cautioned skepticism - something which Objectivism doesn't encourage. It encourages a "high self esteem" which in this context means "I know what I saw so I must be right, so how dare he caution skepticism!"

Objectivism definitely does not encourage the modern type of pseudo self-esteem that comes from deluding oneself that one is successful or correct.

You say that Objectivism discourages skepticism. Of course, it depends on what exactly you mean by "skepticism", not merely in terms of your theory of it, but also in day-to-day action and reasoning.

[Zedic]

You say that Objectivism discourages skepticism. Of course, it depends on what exactly you mean by "skepticism", not merely in terms of your theory of it, but also in day-to-day action and reasoning.

The context behind my controversial statement has long been lost (except by me) due to the nature of some members to get distracted by abstracts instead of trying to infer the intended meaning. The original context* from which that statement was derived, I was trying to say that the members are so caught up in their own personal philosophical abstractions that they're helpless to think outside the box and comprehend the words of someone as different from them as myself.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

--Aristotle

* http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...mp;#entry197678

Edited November 24, 2008 by Zedic

[softwareNerd]

Your link is invalid, but no matter...

...I was trying to say that the members are so caught up in their own personal philosophical abstractions that they're helpless to think outside the box and comprehend the words of someone as different from them as myself...

Okay, so you're speaking more about the process of discussion and communication (as discussed briefly here), rather than the process of understanding reality on one's own (i.e. post-discussion). No argument about the notion -- I haven't read the original thread, so that's no judgment on anyone ... it often takes two hands to clap.

[Focus]

You say that Objectivism discourages skepticism. Of course, it depends on what exactly you mean by "skepticism", not merely in terms of your theory of it, but also in day-to-day action and reasoning.

Skepticism was the Greek philosophy that one cannot know anything except by his own senses. I think that there also was the offshoot of skeptics who said that even our senses can't be trusted so we can't know anything. Either way, that is the true definition of skepticism. People have also corrupted the definition of "Cynic" which has almost nothing to do with what we have made it to be.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Focus

[Zedic]

No argument about the notion -- I haven't read the original thread, so that's no judgment on anyone ... it often takes two hands to clap.

Yes, and I'll like to point out what you said right below that post for emphasis:

In particular, the other person will sometimes use a word or phrase that might not refer to the same referents as an Objectivist would. Sometimes, one has to stop and clarify that before anything else. At other times, that will merely throw the discussion off track. Often, one has to be willing to work with the concepts the opponent is using. One might point out that one would not use a particular term in that particular way, but will do so temporarily.

Either way, that is the true definition of skepticism.

I use the word skepticism in its modern usage. My anthropology 101 professor was pretty cool and had us read The Burden of Skepticism by Carl Sagan for class. It really solidified my attitude towards skepticism. If one wants to call me a skeptic in the sense of the Greek philosophers, I'd just shrug and say "meh". I can understand where such an idea may come from, but it's not entirely accurate. For all intents and purposes I agree with Rand's axiom that A is A, but it's not necessarily an axiom for me. Take this webpage as an example. The exercise given to the reader is to show "that relativity theory and quantum mechanics are based on corrupt philosophies because they violate the principle of identity". My response is, perhaps they're not corrupt theories but in fact show that the law of identity isn't an axion (ie, it's not always a property of reality and fails in some circumstances, such as in quantum mechanic's wave/particle duality). Unless you can show me a better philosophical frame work which not only makes the same predictions of quantum mechanics and relativity, but can take it one step further and make a prediction neither of them do, I will remain skeptical within that specific circumstance. The burden of proof is on those who say the theories are based on corrupt philosophies.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Zedic