Testing the waters

[emorris1000]

Howdy. New to the forums, thought I would give a bit of background.

I have always had an anti-authoritarian streak. My parents always said that I would never take someone else's word for something and had to screw it up myself before I learned . In highschool this lead me into the punk scene which I saw as a culture that by definition rejected oppressive authority. But, as I got older I realized that it was itself a fashion more than an ideology, and in that way ironically created it's own authority.

Then in college (BS Chem) I lived in housing co-ops (kind of like a co-ed frat with hippies/hipsters) and enjoyed it again for what I saw as another group that rejected authority, but really what it did was simply redefine the authority and its goals, and could be far more blatantly oppressive (for example: "I hate frat guys, they're always so prejudiced.")

After college I was pretty dissillusioned and confused about my views as my two interactions with cultures that rejected authority either did so only superficially or simply replaced one authority with another.

So, when at my first job my boss asked me if I had ever read Atlas Shrugged I was a bit ambivalent. I had read roughly 1/2 of it years ago and remembered the characters being stilted and poorly written, and told him as much. He suggested I read the Fountainhead instead as it had more complex characters. I kind of forgot about it, but then one day I found a copy of it as a book on tape and listened to the whole thing. There was one line that stuck with me on that fundamental level that is innescapable:

"I think the only cardinal evil on earth is that of placing your prime concern within other men. I've always demanded a certain quality in the people I liked. I've always recognized it at once--and it's the only quality I respect in men. I chose my friends by that. Now I know what it is. A self-sufficient ego. Nothing else matters."

A self sufficient ego. This is the most important aspect of existence. It is the rejection of authority, not as a struggle for the sake of it's rejection, but for the impossibility of it.

This had a profound effect on me. Permanent, if you will, and inescapable. I went on to read Anthem and Atlas Shrugged. I was surprised to find that the latter was as stilted in the last read as in the first, and generally disliked it (that's an essay in and of itself).

But I realized that the failure with my previous experiences in the co-op or with the punks was that I was simply supplanting the authority of one group with another, and the true self-sufficiency comes only from within.

That's why I've never really sought out any objectivist sites before. What need is there for a group exercise in discussing self-sufficiency? It reminds me of this story of 2 Taoists who meet. They talk for a moment, then one mentions he is a Taoist. The other responds with a bit of excitement that he's also a Taoist. Then, they both sit with a pause in the air until one says "well that's the trouble with being a Taoist.....you can't really talk about it."

Objectivism strikes me somewhat similarly. By approaching it as a group you may in the end weaken it due to the group providing a sense of authority to a concept in which authority begins and ends with the individual. The schisms in teh Objectivist community over time only exemplify this.

But to be honest I am curious about what is out there, and in the current political/economic climate I see there being major oppurtunities for the misuse and misappropriation of Objectivism, something that makes my skin crawl.

So here I am, testing the waters.

[Eiuol]

Hello!

The thing about self-sufficiency isn't really the point, but an independent mind. Self-sufficient can easily be interpreted as "screw everyone, even the good ones; I only need myself" and then proceed to live your life in a secluded mountain. Independence is about making judgments with regards to your own life and mind. Other people can provide fantastic value to you, in ways that you may never be able to provide alone. Rand should be evidence enough (because this relates to your personal experience) to see that you can benefit from the knowledge of others, and still remain independent. Of course, on a website like this, the most important question is how you want to go about tapping into the knowledge and personal experience of others.

It is a valid concern to think about how a sense of authority may come about. Quoting Rand is a very easy thing to do, and it's also quite easy to just look at something she says and think "Well, that's all there is to it. No further questions." That's a direct road to groupthink when discussing Objectivism other people. What I think is far more useful on a forum like this is to ask or discuss topics related to your life or ideas that have intrigued you. There shouldn't be a contest of who knows more or who is a "real Objectivist". In other words, focus should be on: 1) what kind of knowledge would you like to provide? 2) What kind of knowledge can you benefit from? With that kind of mindset, it's very selfish, never a focus on "The Right Answer." You'd be framing your questions as an individual, not as a member of a well-defined group.

The great thing about a site like this is you can expect agreement on fundamental things like selfishness being a great moral standard. You won't need to worry about proving that all the time in rational discourse. You can think beyond those fundamental topics and discover some interesting questions or ideas which you've never had before. That's the very reason I come here.

[whYNOT]

. Then, they both sit with a pause in the air until one says "well that's the trouble with being a Taoist.....you can't really talk about it."

Objectivism strikes me somewhat similarly. By approaching it as a group you may in the end weaken it due to the group providing a sense of authority to a concept in which authority begins and ends with the individual. The schisms in teh Objectivist community over time only exemplify this.

But to be honest I am curious about what is out there, and in the current political/economic climate I see there being major oppurtunities for the misuse and misappropriation of Objectivism, something that makes my skin crawl.

So here I am, testing the waters.

emorris,

Dive in.

Being anti-authoritarian has clear advantages, to begin with, I think.

I've sometimes thought it could be a precondition for many new Objectivists, that they have an independent mind to start with... for them to become hugely more independent as they get into it. Like you, that was my case, and I can't be certain if it works for everybody - also it does appear a little "chicken-and-eggish".

(We might begin as "anti-", but eventually switch to predominantly "for-" in my experience.)

I'll take a shot here that what you were looking for in those early days actually was an authority figure - but one that you could always count on, one that wasn't an insult to your intelligence - meaning of course, sacrifice of your own mind.

The 'authority' you sought is you, and your own.

You know by now that mind-independence is a major virtue in Objectivism.

You will meet other fine 'minds' here and elsewhere, but they are not Authority over you, but rather people with more expertise and knowledge in philosophy, and its applications, that is within your capability to know, too.

For the rest: unlike the Taoists, reality, rationality, and thinking about thinking, provide endless material to discuss.

Also, it may not be possible to influence the direction of the philosophy - no matter how one might wish to sometimes . Anyway, one's self-interest is supreme. As by-product of that, Objectivism as a movement will definitely benefit also.

Welcome!

[softwareNerd]

Welcome to OO.net