What's in your head?

Introductions and Personal Notes
1

I can’t believe how late I am with this introduction; I’ve been posting on the board since 2008! A search of the introductions board doesn’t return any posts by me. I guess it’s time.

I agree with objectivists on many points. I can’t yet say “I’m an Objectivist” because I don’t agree with everything. (Among other things, the value and relationship to families and children is a sticking point for me.) However, I am attempting to integrate the big chunks of abstractions floating around in my head, and the more I integrate, the more Objectivist I become.

My early development was fractured because I was lying about who I was: I pretended to be Christian and straight rather than cause social disruption in my home and the small town where I grew up. It has taken me a long time to realize how deeply that hurt my integrity. If I had it to do again, I think I would be honest from the beginning. (Having said that, anyone in that position must follow their own judgement. You are not required to put your personal safety or livelihood in jeopardy!)

A teacher tried to introduce me to Objectivism when I was in junior high by having me read “Anthem”. I wasn’t ready for the philosophy at that point; I just remembered it being a strange story.

After leaving home and religion, I drifted for a while. I couldn’t find a view of life that fit what I observed. Buddhism was almost a match in that it asked you to evaluate its edicts and ignore what didn’t match your observations. Unfortunately, it also insisted that life IS suffering, you just have to accept it. There wasn’t enough positive for me to act on. I was stuck with the milquetoast “I’m not religious, I just try to be a basically good person”. That is hardly an inspiration to action or a compelling philosophy. I couldn’t figure out how I was supposed to live my life.

Without a framework to build on, my mind (and life) was crumbling. I couldn’t know when it was OK to spend money, why it was OK to focus time on working out, or how I should choose my vocation. I always felt like I was doing the wrong thing no matter what I did. It got to the point that I wondered when it was moral to run the dishwasher, and I didn’t have an answer.

I developed clinical depression and felt completely isolated despite being married to a wonderful man. (He was sympathetic towards my feelings, but he couldn’t understand the problem. ESFPs don’t analyze reality as a rule.) Nobody understood how I felt or what I thought. Cognitive therapy and medication helped with the depression, but only temporarily. I said to my spouse repeatedly, “I need a view of something noble. Something inspirational.”

Then I read Atlas Shrugged and my world was shaken to the core.

It was the first time I’d been so moved. In retrospect, it was as powerful as falling in love. I hugged the book repeatedly as I progressed. I actually called the characters “brave”. Finally, someone understood how I saw the world. Ayn showed me what was fundamentally wrong with society and why people behave the way they do. Even more important, I finally had a model for right action. This was how people should behave, how they formed values, how they should interact (as equal traders).

Since then I’ve been hooked. I’ve read OPAR and word-processed a summary for easy reference. OPAR holds the same place in my esteem that religious texts occupy for many people. But instead of some “holy” text I’m supposed to accept on faith, OPAR is a well-reasoned anaylsis of the world we live in and our place within it.

I’ve read most of the small-format Ayn Rand books and am currently going through “The Voice of Reason” with the North Dallas Objectivism study group. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/ ) More Objectivism book purchases are on their way within two years.

I value being a member of Objectivism Online. I read the new posts every day, and post when I belive I have something to add to the discussion. Because my analysis is still ongoing, I have been wrong. Board members pointed out my mistake very clearly and without rancor. It’s an experience I look forward to repeating because corrections move me closer to an integrated view of reality. I’ve also won debates, which hopefully means I’m bringing value too. The discussion is generally about the ideas instead of the participants, which is The Way It Should Be.

Thank you for many days full of thought and a haven of reason in an unreasoning world!

2

(Among other things, the value and relationship to families and children is a sticking point for me.)

Can you elaborate on this, I’m not sure what you mean?

And welcome to the forum! :lol:

3

Welcome to OO.net and thanks for taking the time on a detailed introduction.

4

Can you elaborate on this, I’m not sure what you mean?

And welcome to the forum! :slight_smile:

From my understanding, it seems that families and children are a rough spot for Objectivism. When you have children, you are dedicated to their welfare, occasionally at the expense of your own. That seems to violate the principle of never living for another man’s life. And discussion of children for objectivists get oddly complicated instead of being clearly derived from first principles.

In Ayn’s fiction, families are portrayed as strange parasites that use guilt to keep you in emotional bondage. That’s how I used to feel about my family, but that assessment is changing over time.

In terms of interaction between fully-functioning adults that are unrelated or of chosen relation, Objectivism is inarguably correct. It’s with children and edge cases that I’m not fully settled. I may become more comfortable with this once I have children of my own, and have to integrate them into my value system.

5

From my understanding, it seems that families and children are a rough spot for Objectivism. When you have children, you are dedicated to their welfare, occasionally at the expense of your own. That seems to violate the principle of never living for another man’s life. And discussion of children for objectivists get oddly complicated instead of being clearly derived from first principles.

In Ayn’s fiction, families are portrayed as strange parasites that use guilt to keep you in emotional bondage. That’s how I used to feel about my family, but that assessment is changing over time.

In terms of interaction between fully-functioning adults that are unrelated or of chosen relation, Objectivism is inarguably correct. It’s with children and edge cases that I’m not fully settled. I may become more comfortable with this once I have children of my own, and have to integrate them into my value system.

I value my kids. Before they were born I decided that I would take on the long term project to mold them (my as yet unborn offspring) into reasonable, responsible human beings. That fact isn’t living my life for them though. When they were born they became my responsibility and I KNEW that they would not be mature enough to make certain decisions and rational choices for themselves for a long time. That wasn’t a shock, it was a conscious decision I made which had long lasting implications on HOW I would be able to live my life. Indeed there were ramifications which I probably didn’t forsee when I made the decision but that didn’t change the ultimate goal which was to raise those two great kids.

I’m still doing it (my daughters are 21 and 19), but the reason has not changed (for me) I do these things because I value them. As an example, my wife and I have decided that we will put them both through university so that when they graduate they will not have any debt. My debt will increase in this period, I’ll make about $100,000.00 worth of payments (and get farther in debt in the process) for them. But, please note I wouldn’t dream of doing this if I didn’t value them or if they were parasites. Had they become spiteful looters and moochers I wouldn’t still be paying for them.

What principal am I missing?

6

In Ayn’s fiction, families are portrayed as strange parasites that use guilt to keep you in emotional bondage. That’s how I used to feel about my family, but that assessment is changing over time.

Rearden’s family is portrayed that way, because the other members of his family are vicious and immoral – not just in their family relationships, but across the board. That doesn’t say anything about how families made up of morally good people work.

In terms of interaction between fully-functioning adults that are unrelated or of chosen relation, Objectivism is inarguably correct. It’s with children and edge cases that I’m not fully settled. I may become more comfortable with this once I have children of my own, and have to integrate them into my value system.

You might be interested in reading some blogs by Objectivist parents. There are a number of them, and they talk about parenting and relationship issues from a ground-level perspective. I particularly recommend http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com/ and her posts on Positive Discipline. Don’t skip the comment threads!

7

Rearden’s family is portrayed that way, because the other members of his family are vicious and immoral – not just in their family relationships, but across the board. That doesn’t say anything about how families made up of morally good people work.

You might be interested in reading some blogs by Objectivist parents. There are a number of them, and they talk about parenting and relationship issues from a ground-level perspective. I particularly recommend http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com/ and her posts on Positive Discipline. Don’t skip the comment threads!

I will absolutely follow up there. Thanks to you and Zip both!

8

I thought you may be thinking along those lines, that’s why I asked for clarification. This is a common question of Objectivism and, for me anyway, it was answered very quickly and to my satisfaction, so I figured we could get this one item off your understanding O’ism to-do list. :wink:

Zip and khaight pretty much said everything, but reading Virtue of Selfishness gave me a good understanding of this particular topic, and many others.

9

I thought you may be thinking along those lines, that’s why I asked for clarification. This is a common question of Objectivism and, for me anyway, it was answered very quickly and to my satisfaction, so I figured we could get this one item off your understanding O’ism to-do list. :wink:

Zip and khaight pretty much said everything, but reading Virtue of Selfishness gave me a good understanding of this particular topic, and many others.

I think we need a wiki with questions that every newb asks.

  1. What about roads, fire companies, and emergency rooms?

  2. The free will vs. determinism merry-go-round yet again.

  3. Family’s and children’s: isn’t that sacrifice?

  4. Masculinity, femininity, porn and polyamory.

  5. How’s the voluntary tax thing work again?

  6. Aren’t animals conceptual beings too?

  7. Are you suuuure we don’t need a little bit of regulation?

  8. Contextual certainty? huh?

  9. What about the genocide of the indians?

… and for those of you who love fantastic hypotheticals…

  1. If there was a robot who was indescructible, but who could reproduce himself, yet napped twice on every fifth Thursday, but was constructed originally by man, but needed to forage for nuts and bolts to survive, but not really, who happened upon someone else’s cabin full of bolts in a crazy snowstorm… (you get the point)

Sorry to hijack. It’s Friday and I’m feeling whimsical.

10

I think we need a wiki with questions that every newb asks.

  1. What about roads, fire companies, and emergency rooms?

  2. The free will vs. determinism merry-go-round yet again.

  3. Family’s and children’s: isn’t that sacrifice?

  4. Masculinity, femininity, porn and polyamory.

  5. How’s the voluntary tax thing work again?

  6. Aren’t animals conceptual beings too?

  7. Are you suuuure we don’t need a little bit of regulation?

  8. Contextual certainty? huh?

  9. What about the genocide of the indians?

You know, that would actually be quite a good idea. If anything it would make for very interesting reading for newcomers, and make life easier because whenever someone asked the question, the link to that FAQ would get posted.

Or maybe it’s been done already? I just drove up. :wink:

-PKD

11

Don’t forget the grand combined thread on why is it that we must value life–a new thread on that seems to crop up at least once a month.

12

Sorry to hijack. It’s Friday and I’m feeling whimsical.

:wink:

Wait, isn’t there already a place for that? http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=1127 :wink:

13
  1. If there was a robot who was indescructible, but who could reproduce himself, yet napped twice on every fifth Thursday, but was constructed originally by man, but needed to forage for nuts and bolts to survive, but not really, who happened upon someone else’s cabin full of bolts in a crazy snowstorm… (you get the point)

Hey, don’t steal my characters. :wink: