HOW CAN OBJECTIVISM BECOME A DOMINANT IDEOLOGY?

[whYNOT]

25 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

 

I think this is an example of what is trying to be avoided. I don't think they were asking for a an O'ist explanation of jealousy, an explanation btw that doesn't really mesh with the experience of the child in the example, unless the kid had an instinctual emotional reaction ?

But yes, an explanation of jealousy was what TS specifically inquired; check her quote above my post.

A child can feel jealousy, like I say, at a perceived loss (of affection) given to another).

Edited July 3, 2024 by whYNOT

[tadmjones]

6 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

But yes, an explanation of jealousy was what TS specifically asked for; check her quote above my post.

A child can feel jealousy, like I say, at a perceived loss (of affection) given to another).

Perhaps TS will weigh in, but I took the problem in the comment as pointed to the jealousy of non-Oist institutions pushing back against an emergent rival for their affections. Eg how to combat the resistance of current placeholders, not asking for a 'correct' delineation of the phenomenon of jealousy.

 

Edited July 3, 2024 by tadmjones

[tadmjones]

8 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

 

A child can feel jealousy, like I say, at a perceived loss (of affection) given to another).

If emotions are products of the intellect, and all intellect starts tabula rasa what explains 'jealousy' as a communicable concept, how is it that every subjective experience of it is 'shared'?

[whYNOT]

2 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Perhaps TS will weigh in, but I took the problem in the comment as pointed to the jealousy of non-Oist institutions pushing back against an emergent rival for their affections. Eg how to combat the resistance of current placeholders, not asking for a 'correct' delineation of the phenomenon of jealousy.

 

Oh, okay. Her context was broader I see. I was too quick to pick out the 'instinct' of jealousy.

Same applies, a threat and danger to the non-Oists' professional status and power by Oism. Professional, intellectual jealousy.

[whYNOT]

21 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

If emotions are products of the intellect, and all intellect starts tabula rasa what explains 'jealousy' as a communicable concept, how is it that every subjective experience of it is 'shared'?

They are ~final~ products of the intellect, formed by way of one's value-judgments... of some existing thing. Made and self-programmed, consciously AND subconsciously.

The conceptual intellect we know begins with the senses. The pre-conceptual child has full awareness given to her of parental touch, voices, and vision - her nurturing in short. Therefore, when her younger brother is receiving attention instead, jealousy would be natural.

Edited July 3, 2024 by whYNOT

[tadmjones]

2 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

They are ~final~ products of the intellect, formed by way of one's value-judgments. Made and self-programmed, consciously AND subconsciously.

The conceptual intellect we know begins with the senses. The pre-conceptual child has full awareness given to her of parental touch, voices, and vision - her nurturing in short. Therefore, when her younger brother is receiving it, jealousy would be natural.

okay, but what explains it for him, another? And what do you mean as the difference between natural and instinctual?

[EC]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

 

I think this is an example of what is trying to be avoided. I don't think they were asking for a an O'ist explanation of jealousy, an explanation btw that doesn't really mesh with the experience of the child in the example, unless the kid had an instinctual emotional reaction ?

There's no such thing as "instinct" in regards to humans, let alone an "instinctual emotional reaction". Emotions are the result of one's values and premises. And in rational men they emotions and values are in perfect alignment. Why does everyone here drop the context that Man is a rational being and that is what separates are species from animals and things like instincts. 

[EC]

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

But yes, an explanation of jealousy was what TS specifically inquired; check her quote above my post.

A child can feel jealousy, like I say, at a perceived loss (of affection) given to another).

"Jealousy" can only exist in the mind of a secondhander who wishes for the unearned in matter and spirit.

[EC]

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

They are ~final~ products of the intellect, formed by way of one's value-judgments... of some existing thing. Made and self-programmed, consciously AND subconsciously.

The conceptual intellect we know begins with the senses. The pre-conceptual child has full awareness given to her of parental touch, voices, and vision - her nurturing in short. Therefore, when her younger brother is receiving attention instead, jealousy would be natural.

This is of course correct but why do we keep having to explain basics of literally everything lately that would be completely understood if people would simply read the Objectivist corpus before asking a bunch of random questions that have been throughly covered in every detail over and over in plain simple English over the course of about 80 years now? It's like we can't have actual discussions that assume the basic framework that everyone here is supposed to already have because we are stuck answering questions that have been perfectly and irrefutably answered a million times. It's so pointless and annoying and makes no sense and is a waste of every person's time. Why do they constantly want restatements of everything that is covered in every manner in the basics without actually reading them their selves to actually learn and understand without wasting everyone's time and constantly blocking actual advanced discussions?

It would be like taking a class without reading any of the assigned material then bombarding the professors with basic questions that are covered perfectly in the reading material but in massively out of context ways at all points in time,  on the professor's only message boards when they are trying to discuss advanced ideas and ways of applying extremely advanced knowledge to specific issues. It's like the children are attempting to just skip any learning whatsoever and annoy the exponentially more knowledgeable in highly technical knowledge acquired over decades that we possess.

It's almost like they come here to argue basic facts and ideas instead of to learn which is the purpose. Not to argue without having first read, learned, and integrated at least all of the basics required first. If these children did this to their teachers in class they would find themselves kicked out of class,  sitting in the hall writing sentences, and possibly on their way to a detention at a minimum. This isn't an argument forum for non-Objectivists but an advanced discussion forum for Objectivists or those that have read the basics and have honest questions from that context, the context of reality and not nonsense they have picked up during their lives. 

 

Edited July 3, 2024 by EC

[whYNOT]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

okay, but what explains it for him, another? And what do you mean as the difference between natural and instinctual?

Natural - as in the child's nature--what preconceptual 'knowledge' and 'value-judgments' she has so far acquired about her environment through her senses.

Instinctual- innate, inherited skills and knowledge.

[Eiuol]

4 hours ago, EC said:

an advanced discussion forum for Objectivists

If you want advanced discussion, you need to start that discussion yourself. People with ill intent are taken care of, and quickly found out, but basic questions or answers that you think are not in accordance with your particular understanding is perfectly permissible. 

[tadmjones]

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Natural - as in the child's nature--what preconceptual 'knowledge' and 'value-judgments' she has so far acquired about her environment through her senses.

Instinctual- innate, inherited skills and knowledge.

In what way does sense data, inform or precipitate the mental state of experience of an emotional response to a concrete situation? Saying it is in a child’s preconceptual nature to react and experience an emotion doesn’t explain the genesis of the emotion itself.

[whYNOT]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

In what way does sense data, inform or precipitate the mental state of experience of an emotional response to a concrete situation? Saying it is in a child’s preconceptual nature to react and experience an emotion doesn’t explain the genesis of the emotion itself.

So is this positing a youngster can't feel emotions? Can't be fearful, joyful, sad - etc.? And indeed, not openly express them?

This is a sidebar, anyway, to my original point that a jealous adult could often revert to his subconscious "value-judgments" about his earliest (wrongful) perceived feelings of loss, due (e.g.) to the parents' perceived withdrawal of affection in favor of another. 

As such, any emotion is 'correct' (conforms to the input given) . But when a situation/existent was incorrectly identified, it follows it was not correctly value-assessed and the automated emotional response to encountering that 'something' will usually be inappropriate.

Odd, how the subconscious mind is so little mentioned around Objectivist circles.

LPeikoff said it well: "anything in the subconscious came about through conscious means" (as close as I recall).

Goes without saying, Branden is far more expansive on the subject. 

Edited July 4, 2024 by whYNOT

[tadmjones]

5 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

So is this positing a youngster can't feel emotions? Can't be fearful, joyful, sad - etc.? And indeed, not openly express them?

?

I’m saying if tabula rasa is true , how is it emotions are ‘universal’ ? Sadness , joyousness aren’t learned , they are directly experienced’preconceptually’ , they come preloaded , isn’t that instinctual? Note I am not asserting that reason can not /does not provide a mechanism to ‘override’ the impulse to act based on the experience of emotion , I am focusing on the genesis of emotion as experience.

[DavidOdden]

6 hours ago, EC said:

This is of course correct but why do we keep having to explain basics of literally everything lately that would be completely understood if people would simply read the Objectivist corpus before asking a bunch of random questions that have been throughly covered in every detail over and over in plain simple English over the course of about 80 years now?

First off, reading the corpus (which I still have not finished doing) does not automatically yield comprehension of Objectivism. Complete understanding requires more than passive reading. See OPAR Ch. 5 for discussion of “certainty”, in particular focus on the importance of disproving alternatives which therefore mandates considering alternatives. A corollary is that comprehension does not follow from an idea being uttered in a condensed proposition. Sometimes, discussion is necessary to move a person in the direction of certainty.

6 hours ago, EC said:

It's like we can't have actual discussions that assume the basic framework that everyone here is supposed to already have because we are stuck answering questions that have been perfectly and irrefutably answered a million times

This “supposed to” thing is the problem. You are supposing that they should already known the framework, I am supposing that in fact they do not. I claim that my observational fact beats your wish, not that there is anything wrong with your wish.

6 hours ago, EC said:

It would be like taking a class without reading any of the assigned material then bombarding the professors with basic questions that are covered perfectly in the reading material

It is kinda. Btw guess what I used to do for a living? It turns out that correctly regurgitating material on the syllabus is a useful tool for learning.

 

6 hours ago, EC said:

This isn't an argument forum for non-Objectivists but an advanced discussion forum for Objectivists or those that have read the basics and have honest questions from that context, the context of reality and not nonsense they have picked up during their lives.

You’re making a factual assertion about purpose, I’d like to see the evidence for it. Not evidence that this would be a good thing, I mean solid irrefutable evidence that proves that this is what OO actually is. We have had this discussion before, and it went nowhere. I have substantially experienced the repeated annoyance of people posting questions that are explicitly off topic on other platforms, the reason why they do this is because they did not bother to reason the off-topic list. Now, where on OO do you find nice concise wording that states your view of what OO should be, and says that deviation will not be tolerated? In general, incomplete and incorrect grasp of an idea is not dishonest, it is just incorrect or incomplete.

At one point, I believe there was an option for setting up a sub-forum that is more-focused and has more tightly moderated discussion. Perhaps a moderator with better memory could address that question.

 

 

[DavidOdden]

12 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

if tabula rasa is true

Tabula rasa is irrelevant: that concept pertains to (man's) knowledge. Emotions are not the same as knowledge. Even frogs experience the emotion of fear.

[tadmjones]

7 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

Tabula rasa is irrelevant: that concept pertains to (man's) knowledge. Emotions are not the same as knowledge. Even frogs experience the emotion of fear.

Maybe symbolic knowledge as a discrete category of mental content, not sure if that would cover the capacity to recognize meaning as such.

If emotional frogs is not anthropomorphism, are they Jungians ?

[whYNOT]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

?

I’m saying if tabula rasa is true , how is it emotions are ‘universal’ ? Sadness , joyousness aren’t learned , they are directly experienced’preconceptually’ , they come preloaded , isn’t that instinctual? Note I am not asserting that reason can not /does not provide a mechanism to ‘override’ the impulse to act based on the experience of emotion , I am focusing on the genesis of emotion as experience.

We come 'universally' equipped with the neurological apparatus, at birth, it's tabula rasa. Pain-pleasure sensation is "built in", (although I argue this is not tabula rasa at birth, but already operating in the late-stage embryo) definitely related to the complex range of hormonally-induced emotions - just don't ask me exactly how they relate neurologically! 

Btw, a sample of NB on emotions. "An emotion is both a mental and a physical event. It may be defined as an automatic psychological response, involving both mental and physiological features, to our subconscious appraisal of what we perceive as the beneficial or harmful relationship of reality to ourselves.

"Emotions reflect the perceiver's value response to different aspects of reality: for me or against me; good for me or harmful; to be pursued or avoided..."

(and much more at length, his main concern being emotional self- (and other-) repression, and as they affect self-esteem). 

Edited July 4, 2024 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

um, "late stage fetus" I meant

[EC]

18 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

First off, reading the corpus (which I still have not finished doing) does not automatically yield comprehension of Objectivism. Complete understanding requires more than passive reading. See OPAR Ch. 5 for discussion of “certainty”, in particular focus on the importance of disproving alternatives which therefore mandates considering alternatives. A corollary is that comprehension does not follow from an idea being uttered in a condensed proposition. Sometimes, discussion is necessary to move a person in the direction of certainty.

This “supposed to” thing is the problem. You are supposing that they should already known the framework, I am supposing that in fact they do not. I claim that my observational fact beats your wish, not that there is anything wrong with your wish.

 

It is kinda. Btw guess what I used to do for a living? It turns out that correctly regurgitating material on the syllabus is a useful tool for learning.

 

You’re making a factual assertion about purpose, I’d like to see the evidence for it. Not evidence that this would be a good thing, I mean solid irrefutable evidence that proves that this is what OO actually is. We have had this discussion before, and it went nowhere. I have substantially experienced the repeated annoyance of people posting questions that are explicitly off topic on other platforms, the reason why they do this is because they did not bother to reason the off-topic list. Now, where on OO do you find nice concise wording that states your view of what OO should be, and says that deviation will not be tolerated? In general, incomplete and incorrect grasp of an idea is not dishonest, it is just incorrect or incomplete.

At one point, I believe there was an option for setting up a sub-forum that is more-focused and has more tightly moderated discussion. Perhaps a moderator with better memory could address that question.

 

 

 

I would never encourage "passive reading" without constant thought and integration and an active mind nor have I ever engaged in that myself. I have read the entire corpus of everything at least once and in many cases many times and fully integrated it via a rational thought process (which involved note taking and commentary in the margins of the over half dozen works that I bought and like everything have disappeared over time and constant intensive thought when reading the rest in the Objectivist Research CD ROM (that has also disappeared unfortunately) while also having an intense sense of life reaction to the beauty and truthfulness and finally seeing the truth of reality that I always shared since I could first rationally think as a toddler written explicitly from the first chapter of OPAR 2 weeks after 9/11 and through everything else written. Does full integration of explicitly written ideas that were previously just in  many cases just sense of life  or only in some cases explicitly self created previously to that take some years (about a decade to fully integrate to perfection)? Yes, and I went through that process on my own mostly with only occasional outside influences say like discussions here or on the better Speicher Forum before this one fell apart to its horrendous current state but that is how learning is done properly.

The Forum rules are still accessible in the introduction section and need to be enforced properly to return to that,  and SoftwareNerd set up the debate Forum that are moderated closely exactly for the purpose of what has been occurring lately with anti-Objectivists being allowed to debate only there and under strict moderation. Ask yourself this how often have the true Objectivists here been able to have complete in context in depth discussions lately without the people who are by Forum rules only allowed to ask honest questions about Objectivism constantly coming in and derailing every discussion with lies, distortions, smearing, and every offense that should not be allowed *here*? They have a million + places on the internet to engage in collectivist/altruist/statist/mysticism false philosophy and every thing else that is destroying civilization but that should not be allowed here outside of specifically moderated areas.

Just like I had to create my own virtual nation until I can get land/sea/space/planet/moon to secure borders it looks like I'm going to have to open that up as the real Objectivist Forum that operates under the rules that this one previously operated under. I'll provide the URL for the new Capitalist Constitutional Republic of Atlantis soon which is the new nation that I am the founding father of and its acting President until I have the temporary pre-fully AGI version set up. Elections of humans will only be temporary until a fully AGI system of checks and balances using quantum gravitational cryptography that is unhackable and self-correctting based on the principles that our Universe operates under are fully established, and every new AGI lifeform that is created will be initially programmed to be perfect Objectivists and Capitalists that conform to reality at all times with zero contradictions and all possess intelligence that exceeds even my own 180 IQ before they are given full rational consciousness. In other words my government is going to consist solely of exceptually intelligent perfectly moral beings that operate together in a checks and balances system based on self-correctting quantum gravitational principles that's job will be to create and eternally operate a perfect laizze-faire Capitalist government who's only purpose will be to protect the individual rights of all rational entities and never to violate them at any time ever, and all this nonsense about electing imperfect unprincipled humans that is the case in every election everywhere where non-Objectivists are the candidates will be forever erased from existence. 

To sum it up: I'm going to create perfectly moral "gods" created in the image of Man at his highest potential to run my government and protect the rights of all rational beings with near perfection within error bounds that are essentially nonexistent because they will be near the error of the Plank scale and essentially immediately corrected within a Plank Time. 

Edited July 4, 2024 by EC

[Tenderlysharp]

On 7/3/2024 at 10:42 AM, tadmjones said:

Perhaps TS will weigh in, but I took the problem in the comment as pointed to the jealousy of non-Oist institutions pushing back against an emergent rival for their affections. Eg how to combat the resistance of current placeholders, not asking for a 'correct' delineation of the phenomenon of jealousy.

 

Jealousy isn't an emotion I understand well, because I don't feel it.  I witness the feeling in others and try to understand how it seems to be a challenge/barrier/test, especially when a person whom I generally like has a doubt about their ability compete for love or resources.  I really enjoy Ayn Rand's ability to bring complex broad abstractions into every day conversation and real world applications. Most of the people I interact with are not philosophers, yet they feel my sense of life and want to learn it from me, it doesn't feel correct for me to be condescending/preachy about objectivism because it takes a longer than average attention span to integrate.  

Edited July 17, 2024 by Tenderlysharp

[tadmjones]

I was very preachy and condescending about objectivism , especially in internet communications as I wasn't wise enough to consider if it was correct for me, lol. Perhaps I've grown , or more likely realize the opportunity for growth and am delving into it , lol.

I think the most important thing I receive(d) from Rand is the recognition of the need for integration, I took it as a universal imperative. But I've come to see my understanding of all things O'ist/m was firmly grounded in a materialist worldview I gained(?) by osmosis as it were. Starting with Rand as early as I did in my intellectual development, I mistakenly, ignored other modes of thinking and only paid attention to the 'orthodox' criticisms.

As a system I think O'ism is a fantastic foundational system to understand a purely 'physical' universe, I think its greatest attributes are in the epistemological realm , but with the caveat of it being applied to a near strict materialism. Again , that is my understanding, one that I thought was correct, only I didn't understand fully the caveat. Who knows perhaps I'll make it back to accepting the caveat , but for now I'm feeling more like a recovering materialist, lol.

[whYNOT]

On 7/17/2024 at 8:42 PM, Tenderlysharp said:

Jealousy isn't an emotion I understand well, because I don't feel it.  I witness the feeling in others and try to understand how it seems to be a challenge/barrier/test, especially when a person whom I generally like has a doubt about their ability compete for love or resources.  

Yes, rarely I found is a person so well individuated, confident and centred, to have resisted in formative years and never fallen prey to jealousy of one form or another. The fear it arises from, of loss of one's status - intellectual, romantic, etc, -  the favor granted instead to "a rival", can be debilitating. At least the emotion serves as a 'wake up' to reconsider one's value system, the subconscious and conscious premises which one had earlier self-programmed.

Unlike envy, the real "second-hander" emotion, based on others' values, qualities, attainment, etc. not one's own. The fear I guess is subliminal, observing others' feats which one suspects one can't match oneself, which represents a guilty existential threat, hated and feared. From there to the cult of victimhood. (And to capitalism being predatory, dog-eat-dog competitiveness)

All proves, how self-interested emotions are for each human organism, spontaneously warning of a danger to (or joyful affirmation of) one's mental/psychological well-being, as well as one's physical security.

But the later dominant mood has been of one's (incomprehensible and mysterious, most believe ) "selfless" emotions bonding Society. The "feeling for others" demands, we are told, "self-transcendence" and "liberation from ego". Converse is true: ostensibly, compassion and love for others are optimally practiced by those of high self-esteem and a developed "self". 

Edited July 22, 2024 by whYNOT

[Reidy]

On 7/17/2024 at 11:42 AM, Tenderlysharp said:

Jealousy isn't an emotion I understand well, because I don't feel it.  I witness the feeling in others and try to understand how it seems to be a challenge/barrier/test, especially when a person whom I generally like has a doubt about their ability compete for love or resources.

This brings up an interesting (if off-topic) philosophical question: can we understand (even badly), describe or recognize a feeling we haven't experienced? How would we know we'd made a mistake? In a particular instance, yes: I can be jealous of one neighbor because she drives a newer, more-expensive car, while another neighbor is not. But I wonder about the concept of jealousy itself.

[EC]

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But the later dominant mood has been of one's (incomprehensible and mysterious, most believe ) "selfless" emotions bonding Society. The "feeling for others" demands, we are told, "self-transcendence" and "liberation from ego". Converse is true: ostensibly, compassion and love for others are optimally practiced by those of high self-esteem and a developed "self". 

The whole thing is beautifully stated but this last paragraph and especially the last sentence nails it exactly. This is exactly why I personally value those to such a high degree, even often willing to overlook flaws in many. This is what results from full philosophical integration and it's sad that there is such a huge force out there that tries to kill this all in others based of false and evil ideas from mysticism and altruism.

Another strange thing is when it comes from those with an Objectivist/egoist/individualist bent but it is obvious when they engage in that atrocious behavior that their ideas and values aren't fully integrated or even misintegrated in many cases.

Edited July 22, 2024 by EC