If you could do it all over again

[Tenure]

Just to put something somewhat more fun in amongst the myriad of very involved discussions going on at the moment:

Reading Ayn Rand's work for the first time was a very fun experience. It continues to be a lot of fun as you re-read it, but like a lot of first times (I say 'a lot of' because some people didn't enjoy their first kiss/car-ride/major felony), the repeat of the experience never quite captures the magic, the emotional high of a discovery. And what could be more thrilling than finding your very foundational beliefs challenged, or morally vindicated?

However, we go on, studying more and more, and we make mistakes along the way. The major thing all of us have met within ourselves and others at some point is some form of Rationalism. We might also worry about how we're not 'like Roark', about how we aren't productive geniuses, about how we don't have this or that thing which isn't actually essential or important to living rationally. Some even try to cut off parts of themselves, such as their humour, or their compassion for other people, because they mistakenly think these aren't Objectivist.

Needless to say, there's a lot of things you can do wrong, in Objectivism, as in anything outside Objectivism and the application of it. If you could go back and do it all over again, what mistakes would you avoid? What things would you advise new students to watch out for?

I think I'd say three things:

Avoid the Rationalism. Avoid the ARI/TOC/Branden thing. Read Aristotle.

The first (coupled with advice on what they should do instead) would teach them to learn Objectivism properly and would be the first step to rooting out Rationalism as a method of thought for them. The second would help them avoid a lot of aggrovation about something which isn't important to understanding Objectivism, which is highly complex and which, historically, will be highly irrelevant. The third would teach them the proper respect for ideas, and an understanding of where Ayn Rand was coming from.

I might also mention that to supplement this third one, that they study History and some basic Philosophy in general, but that would be a supplementary activity. There's about a thousand things they should supplement these three with, and I'm not going to list them all. I'm interested to know what you think should be avoided as well. These three are rather simple, not exactly to perform, but to understand what they are at the very least.

Go!

Edited January 5, 2009 by Tenure

[softwareNerd]

I agree. Another point I would advise is: consider where Rand agrees with lots of people before her, and often with conventional wisdom.

Rand strikes most people as radical. "Book that changed my life", is a common remark. And, indeed she is. However, don't focus solely on places where Rand lambasted other thinkers. When studying Rand, it is also useful to ask: did someone else say something very similar, and if so what was that person's justification, and where exactly is Rand different?

Consider one example: the virtue of "purpose/productiveness". Imagine a non-Objectivist parent advising his teenager: "find something you love to do, and try to make a career out of it". Consider a non-Objectivist child-psychologist describing how young children are happier when they're busy, and have a sense of achieving something. Imagine a feudal lord of three centuries ago saying "an idle mind is the devil's workshop... give them work to do and they will be happier". Think of that person you know who was a busy, conscientious "company man", and who seemed to suddenly go listless and unhappy when he retired. Think of the hobbyist, spending hours building some "toy" that does not seem worth all that time unless the process itself is fun. Even think of Rick Warren and other religious teachers who tell their flock to seek a purpose.

Typically, most such people are not simply concocting a notion of purpose out of thin air. They see some referents: some facts of reality. Instead of only writing them off by seeing how each of them is saying something different, also ask: what is the kernel of genuine observation that each of them is making (even if their concepts and conclusions from those observations do not square with mine)? Doing this helps add more "meat" of real-world referents to the concept and principle that you hold. It adds evidence for your inductions.

As a bonus, if ever one wants to advocate for Objectivism, the above will give one an edge. For instance, one might be able to empathize with some person's quest for meaning and purpose, and explain that they can get meaning and purpose without <insert activity contradictory to their objective good>.

[KurtColville]

What an interesting question! If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't do much differently, but there are a few things that come to mind. Once I started reading Ayn Rand, I took it in at a slow pace. I already implicitly grasped and practiced the Objectivist ethics, so my reaction to her fiction was more or less, "Yeah, that's how I think. I wish others felt the same, but finally I've found someone who thinks like I do and puts it all together like I never could."

Because I started out a little lethargic, I would get a hold of Dr. Peikoff's "Objectivism Through Induction" series right away. I didn't listen to it until almost twenty years after I discovered Ayn Rand (reading "Anthem"), but it propelled my grasp of Objectivism and ability to seamlessly tie concretes to principles like nothing before. I think it's accurate to say that it did more for my epistemology than Atlas Shrugged, OPAR, or ITOE, and they did a ton!

I'd also seek out other Objectivists, either through online forums or through clubs. I did jump into Objectivist Usenet groups when they first started, but I was in school, was just learning Objectivism, and didn't participate with much gusto. (Experiencing it in the context of the birth of the Internet was fun, though!) I would have tried to find other Objectivists at school or right away after school. I waited too long, and really envy those of you who are super-active in college or even younger. Objectivism should be a social force in your life, not just abstract ideas that you agree with, alone in your dorm room.

I didn't get much into this (thankfully), but it's good for new students to avoid and it goes with avoiding rationalism: avoid using Objectivism as the means to one-up others in debate. I can't tell you how many young people I see do this, simultaneously demonstrating that the idea of using Objectivism as a guide for living means little or nothing to them. They use it basically as polemical ammo. Bleh!! Debate for debate's sake is garbage, even if you're good at beating people. I understood it generally right off the bat, but it still took years of integration and premise checking to feel it in my gut, as though it were an organ or appendage, that Objectivism is for living.

[wilicyote]

start when I was 15 rather than when I was 30 -- so much life wasted on mysticism (the philosophy of my upbringing)

[SD26]

start when I was 15 rather than when I was 30 -- so much life wasted on mysticism (the philosophy of my upbringing)

I'm in a similar boat. Would have liked to have had this earlier in my life. And earlier so that I could have some of it as to better teach my kids.

To me, the moral concept of freedom is so consistent of a message, it allows me to recognize the base issue more readily. Rather than trying to understand circular issues of taxation and social engineering that seem to have no moral compass other than "people say" or "its for everyone's good", I recognize it for more of what it is.

I believe I would have been more clear of my goals rather than trying to live up to some other ideals.

I'm not perfect at this yet, but I will agree that I do recognize that Objectivism is for living also. Good line...

[Zip]

start when I was 15 rather than when I was 30 -- so much life wasted on mysticism (the philosophy of my upbringing)

Or 42.

[brikufa]

Allo! I used to be on this forum as kufa, but I hadn't gone on in a while and don't have that email anymore so I had to change it.

I got really militant and obsessive and for a while I was not very happy. I was very concieted and arrogant and therefore felt like I was superior to everyone else and that I had nothing to gain from my peers. I got a wake up call when I got fired from my job at a pharmacy and realized what false confidence and superiority I had, and that productivity and making money weren't necessarily the way to happiness. I started hanging out with people instead of working all the time and realized that what makes me happy was having relationships with people.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I wish I spent more of my adolescence going on adventures and trying new things instead of having my head in books all the time and working ridiculous hours.

Edited January 24, 2009 by brikufa

[Tenure]

I'm in a similar boat. Would have liked to have had this earlier in my life.

I think we'd all like to have started sooner - even better, to have had a proper education, like, at the VDA.

I've started to think, however, that at least given a few better premises, I would have actually preferred spending some more time, Brikufa said above me, having fun and going on adventures, rather than being a 'serious Objectivist'. Obviously, there is no real contradiction, but this is just the effect of rampant Rationalism.

Thanks for the posts. I really like sNerd's idea of reading around the topic, looking for what other people have said on other topics, understanding O'ism in context. That's really good.

[Space Patroller]

I came up the "hard way". Starting in 1968. That means I subscuribed to the Objectivist in that soummer, even before I read ATLAS SHRUGGED My intro to Rand was, of all things, THE FOUNTAINHEAD in '68. "Of all things" because I've always been a hardcore sci-fi guy (Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Bradley, Laumer, Star Trek and If magaizine, right back to Space Patrol, and Tolkien; I even had the obligatory crush on Galadriel). My best bud was likewise. The rest of my reading was non-fiction (Hayakawa, Freude and like that).

Anywho, I tried the two freebie issueso of The OBJECTIVIST that NBI was putting out, from the coupon in THE FOUNTAINHEAD, liked them, subscribed, then in '69 grabbed up the back issues, some of the pamphlets and the bound volumes of the Objectivist Newletter. When the Ayn Rand Letter came out I got that too, Then THE INTELLECTUAL ACITIVST, Never got around to OPAR, is that availible in audio format? I don't think I'll learn anything relevent from it since I've been there from the Golden Age of Objectivism (1965-76). I read ERGO from 1972 until it's completion. Tangentially to that was Reason from 1975-90 and ACCESS TO ENERGY 1979-91.

I did get a lot of good out of Branden. his PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-ESTEEM and PSYCHOLOGY OF ROMANTIC LOVE were mostly re-hashies and continuations of his work with Rand as was THE DISOWNED SELF and still stem from Objectivism. If indeed he was lying, then his lies were better than his truth and he did link Objectivism to Psychology which is the normal entree to philosophy from the special sciences.

About 10 years ago, I read the published version of Ayn Rand's notes. THAT was a ride! You guys have no idea of the depth of though of which she was capable. even at 53 I was thoroughly challenged and be rest assured there havn't been any flies on me for over four decades.

I wouldn't change a thing. Why should I, I've goon from the early monoplane era to the early starship age and can trace back to the eaquivalent of the Wright Flyer: Others should be so lucky.

THE PERFECT SQUELCH

I was doing my grad work at Rhode Island College c1976. One day I was in the Studen U and had come from the rec room to the entry floor and saw a table with pamphlets and a couple or three people behind it. Curious, I went over and they told me it was about socialism. I said politely, really not wanting to be bothered, having other things to do at the time, "no thanks, I'll pass this time" and headed for the door, some 18' across the room. When I got aobut 3/4 of the way, one of the folks behind the table said "It could happen you know..." the very softly "while your're sleeping".

I shot back "It'll happen only if I'm sleeping".

[Thales]

THE PERFECT SQUELCH

I was doing my grad work at Rhode Island College c1976. One day I was in the Studen U and had come from the rec room to the entry floor and saw a table with pamphlets and a couple or three people behind it. Curious, I went over and they told me it was about socialism. I said politely, really not wanting to be bothered, having other things to do at the time, "no thanks, I'll pass this time" and headed for the door, some 18' across the room. When I got aobut 3/4 of the way, one of the folks behind the table said "It could happen you know..." the very softly "while your're sleeping".

I shot back "It'll happen only if I'm sleeping".

That is an awesome come back. Very quick of you!