Randrew:
If all you have read of Ayn Rand is her novels, you do not have a complete understanding of Objectivism. If you think that there are aspects of life where philosophy is unnecessary, you do not have a complete understanding of the nature and purpose of philosophy in general, nor of Objectivism specifically.
Would you please clarify what you mean by “too dry”? What “parts” of Objectivism do you find too dry?
I think my “discenchanment” stems not from a misunderstanding of Objectivism but from a failure to integrate it into every aspect of my living and my thinking.
It’s only been a year since you first read Atlas! I’ve integrated Objectivism down to my toenails, but it took me eight years to do it. Integrating Objectivism requires a lot of reading, thinking, re-thinking, and learning by doing and that all takes TIME.
If I could find an Objectivist psychologist and afford to pay him/her for counseling, then I would be able to discuss in detail specific instances in my life for which Objectivism seems unneccesary to me.
You can consult one of the best Objectivist therapists for free. Dr. Ellen Kenner has a weekly radio show and she takes and answers questions from her audience. See http://www.drkenner.com
Several Objectivist therapists I know also have therapy groups and the cost is quite low. Many take health insurance. They can also refer you to good therapists at low-cost or no-cost clinics. See Dr. Michael Hurd’s web site, http://www.drhurd.com, or read his book, Effective Therapy, for guidance.
I’ve integrated Objectivism down to my toenails, but it took me eight years to do it.
You did pretty well, then. I first picked up Rand about 6 or 7 years ago, and I’ve still got a lot of work to do.
(More than I would have admitted a couple of years ago.) 
I first picked up Rand about 6 or 7 years ago, and I’ve still got a lot of work to do.
(More than I would have admitted a couple of years ago.)
Take whatever time you need and be fair with yourself.
We all begin at different starting points and have different issues. Instead of being discouraged by how far you still have to go, measure your progress by how far you’ve come.
“ ‘Look, Gail.’ Roark got up, reached out, tore a thick branch off a tree, held it in both hands, one first closed at each end; then, his wrists and knuckles tensed against the resistance, he bent the branch slowly into an arc. ‘Now I can make what I want of it: a bow, a spear, a cane, a railing. That’s the meaning of life.’
‘Your strength?’
‘Your work.’ He tossed the branch aside. ‘The material the earth offers you and what you make of it…’” (Fountainhead, 551.)
And this, my friends, is the meaning of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Beautiful, isn’t it? The courage and inspiration one gets from watching Roark perform a few such simple actions is enough to laugh away angry and hopeless words from centuries of snarling philosophers and religious leaders.
Indeed, I do love my work. Mathematics is among the most beautiful of academic disciplines, and there is always more to learn, always more to create. But I am not a Gail Wynand or a Paul Erdos: I cannot put in twenty-hour days doing my work. I need something more, and I cannot figure out what that is.
A few examples of my confusion about Objectivism:
I like David Lynch movies. But why? They are dark, irrational, and seemingly full of a postmodern sickness. Yet there is something magical, fantastic, about them: you never know what sort of quirky strangeness will happen next. I could also name some examples of books and music that I still enjoy after having studied Objectivism (and yes, oldsalt, I have read more than just the novels. I’ve read most of PWNI and VOS, some of Peikoff’s Objectivism (incidentally, a boring book—thank god for the novels), and some of Capitalism), but let it suffice to say that my inspiration from reading Ayn Rand has in no way altered my taste in art.
The Objectivist view on romantic love. Recall the words of Francisco, spoken to Rearden:
“The man who is proudly certain of his own value will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement.” (Atlas, 1st ed. softcover, p. 460.)
First of all, I have enough trouble as it is just finding women who are inspired by Rand and live, or at least want to live, the philosophy in their lives. Second, although these women do exist, that makes for a very small playing field for us men, which leaves us with two options: remain proudly single, or compromise. And, as Galt tells us, “in any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that wins.” What, specifically, influences my desire to compromise?
1 – I want to have children, and I don’t want to do it alone.
2 – I want to have sex, and I don’t want to do it alone.
Furthermore, I don’t even completely agree with Francisco. There is something aesthetic about romantic experiences, from the first date through all of the courtship and lovemaking, and, as I said in 1), I am still just as confused as ever about my aesthetic tastes. That is, I am still attracted to many women who do not quite fit the bill of Francisco’s description, and I have a hard time understanding how it is that fixing my “bad philosophy” will suddenly make me attracted to “higher” women.
Before I end, I will re-formulate my original statement, only with qualifications:
I have been greatly inspired by the characters in Rand’s novels as living examples of ideal human beings.
In the realm of the real world, I have great respect for anyone who honestly lives the philosophy and has managed to integrate it into every aspect of his psychology and self-understanding. Also, I commend the Objectivist movement for its fight for Capitalism and the individual rights necessary for Capitalism.
That said, I still find the philosophy boring (i.e., lacking) on aesthetic, romantic, and, to an extent, philosophical grounds.
I try not to get discouraged, but it’s hard. I don’t think studying philosophy academically helps. Whereas most people can simply dismiss stupid arguments, I have to confront them constantly, and I eventually get so confused that I forget what was so stupid about them in the first place. (This is not to say, by the way, that all analytic philosophy is stupid. Just that a lot of it is stupider than it seems.)
Lately I’ve been particularly unhappy about my own methodology. In some respects, I actually think it’s gone downhill over time; I see myself picking up some of the bad aspects of analytic philosophy, and getting confused over things I know I shouldn’t be confused by. I find it hard sometimes to think in essentials. I’ll have six months off before grad school (after next semester, that is); hopefully I can work on some of this stuff during that time. (And, who knows: it’s quite possible that the problem isn’t as bad as it seems, and I’m just taking the problems I have in understanding complicated analytic stuff too seriously. It’s hard to tell while I’m right in the middle of it.)
In any case, I’m sure I’ll benefit from the adversity in the long-run. In the meanwhile, though, it is a pain in the butt.
Lately I’ve been particularly unhappy about my own methodology. In some respects, I actually think it’s gone downhill over time; I see myself picking up some of the bad aspects of analytic philosophy, and getting confused over things I know I shouldn’t be confused by.
Have you considered the possibility of additional study as the OAC? One of the nice things about that is, aside from the specialty presentation of the course work, is that you have philosophical mentors to give guidance, some of who, not that long ago, went through exactly what you are going through. Betsy just put out a Cybernet Update today on the OAC
APRIL 26TH - OAC APPLICATION DEADLINE
The Objectivist Academic Center is now accepting applications to its
undergraduate program for the Fall. The deadline is April 26, 2004.
The undergraduate program is a systematic course of study designed to
give aspiring intellectuals a thorough grounding in the basics of Ayn
Rand’s philosophy. For more information on their program and how to
apply, visit their Web site <http://www.aynrand.org/academic>.
Yeah, I’ve been taking classes through OAC since it started. I’m pretty far behind in the work, though I’m finally starting to catch back up.
I’ve been disappointed in the lack of feedback through the program. The first year there was extensive interaction with the teachers, and it was extraordinarily beneficial. During the second year there was fairly minimal feedback on the papers, but there were occasional one-on-one tutorial sessions which were very helpful, and the classes were still live so it was still possible to raise questions. This year, all the classes are taped lectures by Leonard Peikoff, and the policy is that assignments will be graded without feedback – which means, unfortunately, that the program is not nearly as valuable, and that my motivation for it has dropped significantly. At this point, the only reason I’m still in the program is because I expect to get more out of it next year when we’re back to live classes. That hope aside, there’s nothing in the program at this point that I couldn’t get simply by listening to lectures and studying independently.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I still recommend the OAC. Like I said, the first year in particular was fantastic, and there are benefits to the later years too: at the least, you get access to a lot of lectures that would cost hundreds of dollars to purchase. Just be aware that the first year isn’t necessarily representative of the whole program: for the second couple of years, it’ll tend more & more to be a real self-study program.
I’ve been disappointed in the lack of feedback …
I’m sorry to hear you are not getting more of what you want. Others have reported somewhat differently, so I am not sure what to make of it. Regardless, good luck in all your studies.
It may actually be somewhat my fault, because I’ve been perpetually behind in the work… dunno. I’m hoping to get completely caught up this summer, so hopefully next year will be different.
Why is it that many people who have read even both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead still remain unconvinced of the absolutism of reason and are so hostile to those who are?
Probably because they merely skimmed Galt’s speech and therefore missed the most important sentence: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. The rest is merely details and applications. This sentence states the core and essence of Objectivism. The full grasp of its meaning and importance separates the real dealers from the wannabes.
I am in the human services business…thinking requires facts…then analysis…and self control
It is so much easier to be “emotional” …to “blame” someone else…to “be a victim” to “not exercise self control.”
To exercise objective thinking has to begin in childhood with intelligent parents who “get it!”…that logic and analysis is part of an adult and successful life.
For the past 40 years…the American left-wing press and media has been on a campaign of creating a culture and society of child-like grown ups and consumers who function between the ages of 10 and 15 years old…who are intellectually lazy, and furthermore, do not have very many “facts” at hand. This is a recipe for disaster.
Furthermore…in Ayn Rand’s 1971 “return of primitive” text…many such grownup children have been taught to merely “protest” anything that smacks of logic, using short hand bumper sticker words…without understanding the concepts of that which they are protesting. It is enough for them to say “deficit…iran contra…Halliburton” and have no idea whether or not that which they are protesting is of any merit. To simply protest is enough.
We now have a sizable population of adult males in their forties who dress like adolescent children, often like “street thugs,” who are also gender confused,… And women who are even mothers, with their bellies and breasts hanging out as if they are still teenagers. Such anti-adult thinking has been inculcated by left-wingers and especially the “advertisers” because they want such “feelers and emotors” to buy and consume worthless products based on “emotion.”
However, such anti-logical “feelers” also consequentially vote…much to the chagrin of those who want and need this society and civilization to be led by objective leaders. Worse yet, even military and intelligence decisions have been “infected” by “emotional” thinking…rather than objective thinking needed to win wars against the terrorists who are on a world-wide jihad against logical thinking.
Is there scientific evidence that there are differences in not only brain functioning and even DNA in how different political parties, and religionists think? Yes there is, and knowing this, it is my contention…that such persons who are not objective in their thinking…are mentally ill, because such a lack of logic and obsessive compulsive thinking that results in the same negative outcomes century after century (one of the definitions of mental ill)…especially at the level of religious jihadism…is endangering and bringing us closer to an epochal disaster if logic is not used to defeat them.
Is your caps lock button knackered?
There is also the possibility pointed out by Mike Mentzer when asked why most people, who work out, still don’t use his Heavy Duty weightlifting system and that is, “because they are just stupid”.
DeeVee, I agree that these people are, in some sense of the term, “mentally ill,” so long as you are not intending this to mean that they do not have the freewill not to be.
These people have a rational faculty, their “illness” is a choice not to use it.
IS THERE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN NOT ONLY BRAIN FUNCTIONING AND EVEN DNA IN HOW DIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES, AND RELIGIONISTS THINK? YES THERE IS …
Really? I have never come across a sequence of nucleotides which has been identified as belonging to members of one political party, rather than another. I have also studied physical brain differences and neurochemical functioning hypothesized to account for certain differences in human characteristics, but I have never seen any such difference associated with political parties. I do try to keep up with the literature in the field, but perhaps I missed something. Do you have some journal references for this scientific evidence?
Is your caps lock button knackered?
There is also the possibility pointed out by Mike Mentzer when asked why most people, who work out, still don’t use his Heavy Duty weightlifting system and that is, “because they are just stupid”.
Unfortunately, Mentzer *was* wrong. I find that Objectivists interested in weightlifting tend to follow Mentzer’s system. It’s time to recognize that being an Objectivist doesn’t make you a good exercise physiologist.
Unfortunately, Mentzer *was* wrong. I find that Objectivists interested in weightlifting tend to follow Mentzer’s system. It’s time to recognize that being an Objectivist doesn’t make you a good exercise physiologist.
I swear by Mentzer’s system and I am an Objectivist because of reading his work and not a Heavy Duty trainee because of my Objectivism.
Can you start a thread discussing weightlifting, please?
And you can start by telling us what you recommend yourself.
This is now moving slightly off topic but I just had a look at your recommended system and I am not impressed.
Still if it works for you then you clearly have far better recuperative powers than i do and you can clearly get away with training at much lower intensity than I need to.
This is now moving slightly off topic but I just had a look at your recommended system and I am not impressed.
Still if it works for you then you clearly have far better recuperative powers than i do and you can clearly get away with training at much lower intensity than I need to.
Like you said, this is not an appropriate place to discuss exercise physiology. If you’re interested in debating the science of hypertrophy, I’d recommend you do it on HST’s forums.
However, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t be “impressed” by scientific evidence, although you seem to be “impressed” by Mentzer’s speculation. We’re all built the same; the principles of muscle growth do not change from person to person (just like philosophic principles). HST is true and proven - I don’t know why you’d want to evade it.
However, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t be “impressed” by scientific evidence, although you seem to be “impressed” by Mentzer’s speculation. We’re all built the same; the principles of muscle growth do not change from person to person (just like philosophic principles). HST is true and proven - I don’t know why you’d want to evade it.
HST true and proven?
That’s exactly what my experience with Heavy Duty has taught me about Mentzer’s system.
To train as frequently as HST requires, just looking at the site you recommend in your posts, I would either overtrain severely or I would have to drop my training intensity severely.
I evade nothing. I have made consistent progress when ever I have kept up my training using Heavy duty and I am never going to a high volume system.