HOW CAN OBJECTIVISM BECOME A DOMINANT IDEOLOGY?

[tadmjones]

6 hours ago, Reidy said:

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.

Philosophically , in another thread a poster discussed cultural differences as exhibiting  a quasi sliding scale of understanding and communicating of sense/perception/ experiencing modes among various groups.

Emotions and the experience of them is or can be seen in context as similar in bringing to attention the feeling of emotions and particular emotions in the same manner  as sense perception ,ie a percept a kin to discerning color gradients.

Communicating the experience of a particular would be dependent on the parties to the communication sharing a common ‘vocabulary’ , concepts distilled to ‘word tags’ that have the same referents. It could be that claims of not understanding or not experiencing a particular emotion are due to misaligned identification of particular emotional states between the parties.

With jealousy in particular , especially in a morality based on rational egoism , it is or seems to be always associated with a negative connotation, like a character defect in AA. A ‘pathological jealousy’ would not I suspect, be conducive to  a self fulfilling life and so should be actively avoided.

But the experience of the emotion itself , the recognition of the experience sans immediate repression is at root ‘involuntary’ and not necessarily a ‘bad’ thing. It need not automatically signal or lead to resignation or a sapping of will, it can and does function as a spark to more determined action if channeled toward action to remedy the cause.

Edited July 23 by tadmjones

[whYNOT]

On 7/22/2024 at 11:50 PM, EC said:

The whole thing is beautifully stated

The credit goes mainly to Nathaniel Branden in HtS. "Not self but the absence of self is closer to being the root of all evil". Irrefutable for O'ists, but a new idea to many of his general readers, who might deduce how the ~presence~ or fullness of consciousness, of "self", is the root of all good.

Very familiar to us from the ethics, except that Branden tackles the huge subject more broadly, from the perspective of psychologist- and recognizable, always the Objective philosopher.

For instance, as much as we know in theory and will reason, that the mind is not alienated from the body, nor body from mind, the theme of that book to me, is how much repression causing self-alienation was earlier committed against one, perhaps innocently, driving body-mind apart, during our young, mostly pre-verbal, preconceptual period when we are experiencing and learning of our "right for life" (or not, or less) - the effects yet remaining while forgotten in the subconscious: all of which cannot be only reasoned away by a free will. Emotionality plays a big part, showing one the extent the self is connected to reality, i.e., is "efficacious". 

The most important judgment "one you make on yourself", honoring yourself, hinges on this alienation theme.

Edited July 24 by whYNOT

[EC]

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

The credit goes mainly to Nathaniel Branden in HtS. "Not self but the absence of self is closer to being the root of all evil". Irrefutable for O'ists, but a new idea to many of his general readers, who might deduce how the ~presence~ or fullness of consciousness, of "self", is the root of all good.

Very familiar to us from the ethics, except that Branden tackles the huge subject more broadly, from the perspective of psychologist- and recognizable, always the Objective philosopher.

For instance, as much as we know in theory and will reason, that the mind is not alienated from the body, nor body from mind, the theme of that book to me, is how much repression causing self-alienation was earlier committed against one, perhaps innocently, driving body-mind apart, during our young, mostly pre-verbal, preconceptual period when we are experiencing and learning of our "right for life" (or not, or less) - the effects yet remaining while forgotten in the subconscious: all of which cannot be only reasoned away by a free will. Emotionality plays a big part, showing one the extent the self is connected to reality, i.e., is "efficacious". 

The most important judgment "one you make on yourself", honoring yourself, hinges on this alienation theme.

Yeah, I've read it. Was just nice to see someone express the ideas here in context well.

[whYNOT]

9 hours ago, EC said:

Yeah, I've read it.

I'll know when Objectvism has "come of age", when Branden's writing/lectures are discussed and taught as central or, with later works, adjunct to O'ism.