Howdy

[Nxixcxk]

Hi, my name's Nick and I've been studying objectivism quite intensely for about 2.5 years now.

Some of my goals related to Objectivism are:

1) Being able to speak efficiently about the philosophy as well as repudiate attacks against it with great verbal clarity. (As Ayn did as well as many others...usually I'm able to understand underlying themes of statements ,but when it comes to explaining or making them known to others, I don't do it as eloquently as I'd like to.)--I've been to a few public speeches of renown Objectivists, and during the Q&A's, they speak will admirable verbal clarity! I want to be able to do that too as it is of great use.

2) Increase my vocabulary so that I'm able to define and use words appropriately. Currently, whenever I read a book and come across a word I don't know, I make a mark of it and then come back to it later. I put the word on one side of a flash card along with it's part of speech, then define it on the back and write down the sentence with which it was used in the book. This method seems to work well for me but also seems inefficient (or maybe I'm impatient), so if anyone has any better methods I'd love to hear of them.

Those are my 2 primary short goals. I do have long term goals in relation to objectivism but I think they will be precluded if these 2 short term goals are not met.

If anyone has any methods that I could use to help accomplish goals 1 and 2, I would love hearing them!

Also, I've read many of Rand's books and I'm looking for other books that are rational and of use. Any books that express the antagonist of Rand's views would be beneficial as well, because I need to know the arguments the antagonist's use in order to familiarize myself with them and therefore better repudiate them.

Thanks for the help,

Nick

P.S....I have copious questions but I didn't want to belabor my introduction. Hopefully I'll have a chance to ask them later.

[stephen_speicher]

...

Hi Nick. Welcome to the forum.

You have expressed a serious interest in Objectivism, so permit me to alert you to one thing. It is a bit impertinent to refer to Ayn Rand solely by her first name if you were not on a first name basis with her yourself. Out of respect for her, we usually use "Ayn Rand" or "Miss Rand."

[Dagny]

Welcome to the forum! Tell us a little about yourself? Are you in high school, college, graduate school, working? What part of the U.S. are you from? Hobbies? This place is great to finding answers about Objectivism that you didn't find in books or didn't understand from the books. Also you get to meet a lot of other people with the same values and tastes....there's a lot of variety here. Enjoy!

~Isabel

[BurgessLau]

[...] I've been studying objectivism [...].

Some of my goals related to Objectivism are:

1)  Being able to speak efficiently about the philosophy as well as repudiate attacks against it with great verbal clarity. [...]

2)  Increase my vocabulary so that I'm able to define and use words appropriately.  Currently, whenever I read a book and come across a word I don't know, I make a mark of it and then come back to it later.  I put the word on one side of a flash card along with it's part of speech, then define it on the back and write down the sentence with which it was used in the book.  This method seems to work well for me but also seems inefficient (or maybe I'm impatient), so if anyone has any better methods I'd love to hear of them.

Those are my 2 primary short goals.  I do have long term goals in relation to objectivism but I think they will be precluded if these 2 short term goals are not met.

If anyone has any methods that I could use to help accomplish goals 1 and 2, I would love hearing them!

If you told us your long-term goals, particularly your central purpose in life (career, basically), that would help set the context for those of us who might assist you. Completing the Viewer Profile really is important in providing background information.

For goal (1), I can only offer suggestions based on personal experience. I found the tape lecture series, Objective Communication, to be helpful. It is of course available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. Beyond that, you might seek training through local groups such as Toastmasters and through practice, practice, practice. You will gradually acquire the skills as the years and decades go by.

Accept the fact that you will make mistakes -- errors of knowledge or errors in method -- but learn from them and move on toward your goal. Making errors -- and suffering temporary embarrassment -- are just potholes in a long road to the future.

For goal (2), your method is fine as long as you are somewhat selective in choosing which words to record. You are right that the method is slow, but over the long-term it can be effective, not only for English words (assuming that is your native language) but also for learning words in the other languages you are studying. I found that cutting standard 3x5 index cards in half made them easier to handle. And I sometimes put more than one word on a card face if I had room. That cuts down on the number of cards considerably. Take heart in knowing that the process will not be as time consuming always as it is now. Eventually, you will have covered many of the words you are likely to run into routinely. Of course, there will always be a few new words no matter how old you become.

Another suggestion -- which you may already be implementing -- is to take at least one semester of Latin and one of Greek. Most words in English -- especially technical ones -- come from either Latin or Greek. Knowing a little about those languages can help you figure out or remember English words. A side, but still important benefit, is the confidence you may gain from knowing the roots of your own language. I consider Latin and Greek to be akin to a martial arts course: They can teach not only particular skills, but confidence on the "street" too, if you have enough training in them.

P. S. -- Be sure to be consistent in your capitalization of Objectivism. "Objectivism" is the philosophy that Ayn Rand created and named. It covers the five branches of philosophy she believed important: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics.

The word "objectivism" has other meanings. At best, it refers, in the history of philosophy, to only a certain kind of metaphysics (reality independent of consciousness) or a certain kind of epistemology -- not to Ayn Rand's whole philosophy.

At worst, "objectivism" is a term that haters of Ayn Rand sometimes use: They want the philosophy, but they don't want to give Ayn Rand credit for her revolutionary accomplishment. Another malicious motivation sometimes is a general one: Egalitarianism, that is, bringing all letters, words, and ideas down to the same level. I have talked to egalitarians who told me that capitalized letters are "elitist."

[Nxixcxk]

Thank you for the welcoming and helpful replies, I really appreciate them.

I went through one year of college but didn't find many of the classes to be of much use, so now I am training to become a massage therapist. After I graduate, I plan to work for a few years with that trade while slowly working my way into the stock market. If all goes well, I will be able to save up enough money to attend classes that interest me at the collegiate level---which seems more efficient than self-education in most cases.

I'd say my long term goal is to become proactive in the political realm by spreading Objectivism via speeches and letters.

Hobbies include basketball, weight lifting, philosophy, debating, and various forms of wrestling.

Currently living in Boulder, CO and attending Objectivist meetings at CU.

P.S. don't have readily available access to the internet, so if I'm slow to respond it's usually because of that.

[BurgessLau]

I'd say my long term goal is to become proactive in the political realm by spreading Objectivism via speeches and letters.

[...]

P.S. don't have readily available access to the internet, so if I'm slow to respond it's usually because of that.

One of the many ideas I learned from Ayn Rand's philosophy is to distinguish my ultimate purpose in life (which is happiness) from my central purpose in life (which is the core activity of life, being productive in some way -- in other words, a career). Dagny Taggart and Howard Roark had the same UPL but each had a different CPL. (Of course, there are other goals in life too, such as friendships and favorite leisure activities.)

If your central purpose in life is to be an intellectual activist in the field of politics, why not go straight to the target? For example, enroll in political history, political science, and political philosophy courses? (Of course you will need to take the prerequisites first to make the advanced courses more meaningful.)

And if you want to lecture and write, then you might consider an academic career. That is what academics -- whether they teach at a junior college or the most prestigious university -- do as a career.

P. S. -- Thanks for the note about slow response. Don't worry about it. Part of the beauty of ObjectivismOnline.net is the way it is designed to notify participants when a new message comes out in a thread.

P. S. 2 -- You are right about academic instruction (at its best) being much more efficient than self-study. That is why schools are so common. They work when students know how to use them for their own benefit. Self-study is best done after gaining the basic background and when you have a particular interest that is too narrow to justify a whole course for someone to teach.

[Nxixcxk]

One of the many ideas I learned from Ayn Rand's philosophy is to distinguish my ultimate purpose in life (which is happiness) from my central purpose in life (which is the core activity of life, being productive in some way -- in other words, a career). Dagny Taggart and Howard Roark had the same UPL but each had a different CPL. (Of course, there are other goals in life too, such as friendships and favorite leisure activities.)

If your central purpose in life is to be an intellectual activist in the field of politics, why not go straight to the target? For example, enroll in political history, political science, and political philosophy courses? (Of course you will need to take the prerequisites first to make the advanced courses more meaningful.)

And if you want to lecture and write, then you might consider an academic career. That is what academics -- whether they teach at a junior college or the most prestigious university -- do as a career.

P. S. -- Thanks for the note about slow response. Don't worry about it. Part of the beauty of ObjectivismOnline.net is the way it is designed to notify participants when a new message comes out in a thread.

P. S. 2 -- You are right about academic instruction (at its best) being much more efficient than self-study. That is why schools are so common. They work when students know how to use them for their own benefit. Self-study is best done after gaining the basic background and when you have a particular interest that is too narrow to justify a whole course for someone to teach.

Alright, thanks for the significant suggestions

I do have a few concerns regarding college however, and was wondering if you could shed some light on it.

If I want to take some upper level courses, but the requirements for them are rediculous, say for instance, I want to take a course on capitalism, but the prereq is Shamanism, do I take Shaminism---and if so, is that the same idea as the end justifying the means?

After all, I must admit that many colleges have ludicrous prereqs.

[BurgessLau]

If I want to take some upper level courses, but the requirements for them are rediculous, say for instance, I want to take a course on capitalism, but the prereq is Shamanism, do I take Shaminism---and if so, is that the same idea as the end justifying the means?

After all, I must admit that many colleges have ludicrous prereqs.

I will try to help.

The idea of "end justifying the means" usually refers to doing something immoral in order to reach a moral goal. How does that relate to taking a course on Shamanism? A course on Nazism is not immoral even though Nazism is immoral. Besides, given your central purpose in life, I would think you would want to take a course on Shamanism. It might apply in one way or another to current politics, at least as a source of metaphors and analogies for a political speaker.

To keep this from being a rationalistic discussion, start by providing a real-world example: an actual course you want to take and an actual prerequisite from which you could gain no value or is immoral to take. Then we can work from there.

[Neurosophist]

Hi Nick. Welcome to the forum.

You have expressed a serious interest in Objectivism, so permit me to alert you to one thing. It is a bit impertinent to refer to Ayn Rand solely by her first name if you were not on a first name basis with her yourself. Out of respect for her, we usually use "Ayn Rand" or "Miss Rand."

Why Miss and not Ms.?

[stephen_speicher]

Why Miss and not Ms.?

I answered this before in other posts. Here is one:

================================

Ayn Rand rejected the common usage of "Ms." just as she rejected the common usage of "selfish." Every third party reference to Ayn Rand in all of her Objectivist newsletters always referred to "Miss Rand" in announcements, statements, articles, etc. where she was mentioned (except, of course, when referred to as "Ayn Rand"). These references to "Miss Rand" were all done with her approval as editor, and you will never find any "Ms. Rand" reference therein, despite the common usage. Likewise, in OPAR and other books by those who knew Miss Rand, the reference is always to "Miss Rand," as per her wishes.

================================

[Nxixcxk]

Here is my real world example: When I was enrolled in college, I was planning on majoring in philosophy, but was deterred when I realized how many prerequisites were required in order to obtain the major. I specifically remember their being a requirement of 10 credits of "practical math" before I could take any of the upper level courses.

But regardless, I'm sure all courses could fall under the category of "benefitting me somehow, some way," but I can think of many courses that would be a better allocation of my time and money than "practical math."

Also, I'm going to create a topic called "the ends justifying the means" in the BASIC QUESTION forum, but it is somewhat of a tangent with what we are discussing here.

[Neurosophist]

It is a bit impertinent to refer to Ayn Rand solely by her first name if you were not on a first name basis with her yourself. Out of respect for her, we usually use "Ayn Rand" or "Miss Rand."

Is the portrayal of this fellow's impertinence in referring by only the first name also as Miss Rand would have thought of it, a common policy among all objectivist devotees, or only a policy in this forum?

[BurgessLau]

[...] a common policy among all objectivist devotees [...]

What do you mean by "objectivist"?

The philosophy which Ayn Rand created -- and named -- is Objectivism.

What would "objectivism" be?

P. S. -- In my 60 years of living, using a person's first name indicates personal familiarity as approved by the person one is being familiar with: "Call me Janet" -- or whatever first name that person chooses to be addressed by, with familiars.

I never met Ayn Rand, and thus never earned familiarity. I would, therefore, never refer to her as "Ayn." A young person might mistakenly use a first name for someone he hasn't met, but anyone older should know better than to claim the unearned.

[stephen_speicher]

Is the portrayal of this fellow's impertinence in referring by only the first name also as Miss Rand would have thought of it, a common policy among all objectivist devotees, or only a policy in this forum?

I have personally made the very same comment regarding the use "Ayn" and "Miss Rand," to people who have referred to "Albert" rather than "Albert Einstein." As a general principle, in a great deal of civilized society, one shows respect to exceptional people by refraining from referring to them as one would refer to the friends one plays ball with in the schoolyard. There are also many places in the world where that degree of respect is accorded in general to people with whom one does not have an intimate connection. So the issue of addressing with respect, respect towards people of value with whom one is not friends, extends beyond just its application to Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

With that said, I myself am a very casual guy, and I prefer to be addressed on a forum like this as Stephen, rather than Mr. Speicher. I generally refer to others here the same way. However, in my mind, there are people such as Ayn Rand whose stature is such that I would only refer to her as Ayn Rand, or Miss Rand, but not with the familiar "Ayn." Most Objectivists I know think the same way.

[JoshJaffe]

I have personally made the very same comment regarding the use "Ayn" and "Miss Rand," to people who have referred to "Albert" rather than "Albert Einstein." As a general principle, in a great deal of civilized society, one shows respect to exceptional people by refraining from referring to them as one would refer to the friends one plays ball with in the schoolyard. There are also many places in the world where that degree of respect is accorded in general to people with whom one does not have an intimate connection. So the issue of addressing with respect, respect towards people of value with whom one is not friends, extends beyond just its application to Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

With that said, I myself am a very casual guy, and I prefer to be addressed on a forum like this as Stephen, rather than Mr. Speicher. I generally refer to others here the same way. However, in my mind, there are people such as Ayn Rand whose stature is such that I would only refer to her as Ayn Rand, or Miss Rand, but not with the familiar "Ayn." Most Objectivists I know think the same way.

Would you say that, in an online forum, signing your posts with your first name indicates the way you would like to be addressed? For example, the first two posts in this thread are signed "Nick" and "~Isabel". Subsequent posts have not been signed in the text although you (stephen_speicher) and BurgessLau both include automatic signatures.

I'd infer then from these signature blocks that you prefer to be addressed as Stephen and Mr. Laughlin?

I know that I have erred in this regard in the past.

(Please accept my sincere apology!)

Another question: in the context of a philosophical discussion, would you consider it rude or just terse to refer to Objectivist philosophers by their initials? For example AR for Ayn Rand, and LP for Leonard Peikoff? Harry Binswanger frequently signs with his initials, so I am inferring that he has endorsed 'HB'.

-- Josh

[stephen_speicher]

Would you say that, in an online forum, signing your posts with your first name indicates the way you would like to be addressed?  For example, the first two posts in this thread are signed "Nick" and "~Isabel".  Subsequent posts have not been signed in the text although you (stephen_speicher) and BurgessLau both include automatic signatures. 

I'd infer then from these signature blocks that you prefer to be addressed as Stephen and Mr. Laughlin?

I think you will have to ask Burgess about that.

But, all kidding aside, I have no special expertise in determining connections between signature lines and how people want to be addressed, though I would suspect that signing only by first name might be such an indication, but first and last might not. If this is a concern, just ask the person involved. As I mentioned previously, I myself am a rather casual person and I tend to address most here by their first name, if that is available. If anyone is uncomfortable with that, if they politely ask I would be happy to accommodate them.

I know that I have erred in this regard in the past. 

(Please accept my sincere apology!)

Is this apology meant towards me? If so, frankly I do not recall anything about it.

Another question: in the context of a philosophical discussion, would you consider it rude or just terse to refer to Objectivist philosophers by their initials?  For example AR for Ayn Rand, and LP for Leonard Peikoff?  Harry Binswanger frequently signs with his initials, so I am inferring that he has endorsed 'HB'.

In personal communications with friends who are Objectivists I frequently use such abbreviations, and as you note they are often used that way on HBL. I see nothing wrong with that, but such abbreviations should be reserved for those contexts where it is clearly understood to whom the abbreviation refers. I don't think its use is rude, though it is more familiar than the full name, but using AR is certainly much much less familiar than referring to Miss Rand as "Ayn."

[BurgessLau]

Would you say that, in an online forum, signing your posts with your first name indicates the way you would like to be addressed?  For example, the first two posts in this thread are signed "Nick" and "~Isabel".  Subsequent posts have not been signed in the text although you (stephen_speicher) and BurgessLau both include automatic signatures. 

I'd infer then from these signature blocks that you prefer to be addressed as Stephen and Mr. Laughlin? 

[...]

Another question: in the context of a philosophical discussion, would you consider it rude or just terse to refer to Objectivist philosophers by their initials?  For example AR for Ayn Rand, and LP for Leonard Peikoff?  [...]

Josh,

First for the particulars. Addressing me as Burgess is fine. "Mr. Laughlin" is too formal for a social gathering (though online) in which we have been "introduced," no matter how tentatively (through posting an Introduction and through one's profile accessible by clicking on the screen name).

In a situation where I am unsure of the level of formality, I believe it is always better to be too formal at first and let the other person respond ("Call me Bill.") This is a general approach I take initially even with apparently disreputable people I am meeting for the first time -- for example, on a sidewalk crowded with bums. I learned this in a martial arts school. Speaking with a respectful title -- "Sir, there is a rule against doing that here" -- usually either defuses potentially violent conflicts or gives me the upper hand in prestige and therefore "street power."

Another solution, in some situations, is to use no name at all. Especially here where participants quote a named source. Then using second person ("you") is appropriate, though more distant than a first name or a "Mister."

I would not ever use only the initials of anyone I respect, but don't know personally, unless perhaps that person has requested it (for example, by giving me no other name). Initials are akin to a nick name, a level of familiarity much greater than even a first name. That familiarity would have to be earned by intimacy (for example, the sharing of personal secrets).

The underlying principle of all this is the principle of all etiquette (the art and science of establishing guidelines for social interaction): Does a particular behavior promote trade or diminish it?

[Patrick N.]

Burgess, what martial arts school did you go to?