Why do A-Objectivsts enjoy OO.N?

[dream_weaver]

What motivates individuals who are not interested in expanding their grasp of Objectivism, to gravitate to a forum about it?

Objectivism cannot be grasped easily in this format. It may be a good tool for augmenting ones comprehension.

Objectivism certainly cannot be refuted in this format.

Is there a sense of satisfaction gained from muddying the waters?

Is there a sense of satisfaction derived from not understanding the answers, and concluding that Objectivism is impotent in delivering, although the Objectivist material has never been integrated into ones framework of reference?

[TLD]

What motivates individuals who are not interested in expanding their grasp of Objectivism, to gravitate to a forum about it?

Objectivism cannot be grasped easily in this format. It may be a good tool for augmenting ones comprehension.

Objectivism certainly cannot be refuted in this format.

Is there a sense of satisfaction gained from muddying the waters?

Is there a sense of satisfaction derived from not understanding the answers, and concluding that Objectivism is impotent in delivering, although the Objectivist material has never been integrated into ones framework of reference?

No, no and no. Do you have something specific in mind?

[Hairnet]

What motivates individuals who are not interested in expanding their grasp of Objectivism, to gravitate to a forum about it?

Objectivism cannot be grasped easily in this format. It may be a good tool for augmenting ones comprehension.

Objectivism certainly cannot be refuted in this format.

Is there a sense of satisfaction gained from muddying the waters?

Is there a sense of satisfaction derived from not understanding the answers, and concluding that Objectivism is impotent in delivering, although the Objectivist material has never been integrated into ones framework of reference?

Are you asking why this place attracts trolls? It really doesn't, I have been on a lot of forums, and this place by far is very troll free. I know that some people come on here who don't care to learn anything, but honestly they either get it out of their system and leaver, or they get banned for being trolls.

[emanon]

I think what the original poster maybe be alluding to is how there are at least a few people on here who don't even attempt to think for themselves.

They just post a little quote and then go "why?" or something like that, and make no effort to practice the fundamental ideal of objectivism: Self-generated thought.

A lot of people, wanna-be Objectivists or otherwise, seem to simply want people to give them an answer that they can memorize and regurgitate.

There are a few genuine newbies on here, and to be completely honest, this is probably the worst place they could be. The contradictions, arguments, dumb questions etc will not foster a proper understanding.

If there are any newbies reading this: If you want to really understand O'ism properly, forget about this site for a few months and go read and re-read books by people whom actually know and understand O'ism fully. That is to say, get your knowledge from the source, not second hand.

ie. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff are where you should start.

When you feel you have a strong grasp of the philosophy, then come back here and use this place more a testing ground for conceptual flaws.

- Chris

[Hairnet]

I think what the original poster maybe be alluding to is how there are at least a few people on here who don't even attempt to think for themselves.

They just post a little quote and then go "why?" or something like that, and make no effort to practice the fundamental ideal of objectivism: Self-generated thought.

A lot of people, wanna-be Objectivists or otherwise, seem to simply want people to give them an answer that they can memorize and regurgitate.

There are a few genuine newbies on here, and to be completely honest, this is probably the worst place they could be. The contradictions, arguments, dumb questions etc will not foster a proper understanding.

If there are any newbies reading this: If you want to really understand O'ism properly, forget about this site for a few months and go read and re-read books by people whom actually know and understand O'ism fully. That is to say, get your knowledge from the source, not second hand.

ie. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff are where you should start.

When you feel you have a strong grasp of the philosophy, then come back here and use this place more a testing ground for conceptual flaws.

- Chris

I disagree, I see this sight as being very helpful, and I consider myself a "newbie". This is the only place where I have actually found real Objectivists, not "post-objectivists" or fans of ayn rand, or other posers, but people who actually understand it.

[Zip]

I agree with Hairnet. I found this place immediately after I finished AS and I think the O'ists here helped me quite a bit. Having said that, I have not relied on this site as a sole source, and reading the philosophical works of Ayn Rand and other Objectivist thinkers is a must.

[ttime]

I agree with Hairnet. I found this place immediately after I finished AS and I think the O'ists here helped me quite a bit. Having said that, I have not relied on this site as a sole source, and reading the philosophical works of Ayn Rand and other Objectivist thinkers is a must.

Same here. I think one of the best ways (for people new to Objectivism) to use this site is to read posts/ask questions while they are reading the non-fiction (most importantly "The Virtue of Selfishness"), that way they can ask questions to help clarify certain points they do not fully understand. Of course, even before doing this, it is probably good to have some sort of feel for Ayn Rand's philosophy by reading her fiction.

[emanon]

I disagree, I see this sight as being very helpful, and I consider myself a "newbie". This is the only place where I have actually found real Objectivists, not "post-objectivists" or fans of ayn rand, or other posers, but people who actually understand it.

Okay, fair point. Really all I meant, however, is that this site is *not* some piece of work by Rand, it isn't objectivist literature. If you want to understand what she intended, you have to read her or perhaps Peikoff. Yes, there are some great posters on this website, eg. David Odden and Knast do supply some really great answers which are generally well aligned with what Rand wrote.

BUT, you can't know that what is being said is in fact objectivism unless you go to the source and understand at least the core aspects as written by Rand herself, and verify it with your own mind. Otherwise you are accepting the posts, even posts which are correct, on a basis of faith...

That is why I suggest people are quite familiar with the source (Rand herself) before they come to a forum. Then they have the neccesary information already to test the hypotheses set forth in the posted questions and also, to test the answers of other posters for flaws.

That's my thought, but everyone is, of course, free to make their own decisions. There's no gun in my hand

[JASKN]

BUT, you can't know that what is being said is in fact objectivism unless you go to the source and understand at least the core aspects as written by Rand herself, and verify it with your own mind. Otherwise you are accepting the posts, even posts which are correct, on a basis of faith...

The good posters give reasons to back their words, Rand's references to back claims of hers, and expect or request that others do the same. A new honest forum user will eventually come to do or expect the same, which will inevitably mean reading Rand himself if he hasn't already.

[dream_weaver]

Do you have something specific in mind?

I think I am trying to put my finger on something specific that I have not as yet been able to identify.

Are you asking why this place attracts trolls? It really doesn't.

The few forums I regularly visit are of a different nature. Software issues, and application of geometric tolerancing are a different mentality for sure.

They just post a little quote and then go "why?" or something like that, and make no effort to practice the fundamental ideal of objectivism: Self-generated thought.

This is a part of it.

This is the only place where I have actually found real Objectivists, not "post-objectivists" or fans of [A]yn [R]and, or other posers, but people who actually understand it.

Being relatively new to the site, is what I am looking to find, and develop within myself.

Having said that, I have not relied on this site as a sole source, and reading the philosophical works of Ayn Rand and other Objectivist thinkers is a must.

It can be a supplimental source at best.

. . . most importantly "The Virtue of Selfishness"

an interesting choice of prioritization. ITOE answered a question that had been with me from childhood. "Why do we call a wagon, a 'wagon'. Wouldn't it be [metaphysically] the same by any other label?"

you can't know that what is being said is in fact [O]bjectivism unless you go to the source and understand at least the core aspects as written by Rand herself, and verify it with your own mind. Otherwise you are accepting the posts, even posts which are correct, on a basis of faith...

Validation, verification vs. faith - while difficult to do initially, seems more difficult to explain to someone else. Is it the identification of the tie between experiencial and conceptual?

The good posters give reasons to back their words, Rand's references to back claims of hers, and expect or request that others do the same.

Ah, yes. Distiguishing the crucial differences.

[emanon]

Either way, for better or for worse, what I started is tangential to the original post. So if anyone is really dying to continue this particular discussion, it'd be best to start a new thread I think instead of hijacking the original posters'. Sorry about that.

So let us know when you work it out, Dream_Weaver

[Altan]

I disagree, I see this sight as being very helpful, and I consider myself a "newbie". This is the only place where I have actually found real Objectivists, not "post-objectivists" or fans of ayn rand, or other posers, but people who actually understand it.

emanom makes a valid point though. While this website/forum is helpful, I wouldn't recommend it to someone who isn't even the slightest familiar with Objectivism. It makes far more sense to read, at least, one piece of literary work by Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff, and then venture out. Such online forums always have contrasting views, even one as such as this where most adhere to Objectivist principles/ideas. It's best to read some related book, then formulate your own views/opinions. Even Leonard Peikoff thinks that such online forums aren't that 'good' (in response to a question, the pod cast is on his website), since as he explained, you're just reading other people's opinions and in the end there's a mix of views/opinions (along those lines, not necessarily exact).