This will be my last post on this thread for aforementioned reasons. There’s more than enough scientific evidence to conclude that HST (i.e. its principles) is true and proven. When you increase frequency, you drop volume to avoid overtraining. There’s nothing wrong w/ dropping “intensity;” HST purposely starts w/ (after a deconditioning period) a minimal load (i.e. “intensity”) in order to ensure progressive load. Consult the HST website for detailed explanations of its view on frequency, volume, overtraining, “intensity”/load, etc. It’s true that HST uses the same volume as traditional split routines, but it spreads out that volume over the course of a week to maintain high frequency.
This will be my last post on this thread for aforementioned reasons. There’s more than enough scientific evidence to conclude that HST (i.e. its principles) is true and proven. When you increase frequency, you drop volume to avoid overtraining. There’s nothing wrong w/ dropping “intensity;” HST purposely starts w/ (after a deconditioning period) a minimal load (i.e. “intensity”) in order to ensure progressive load. Consult the HST website for detailed explanations of its view on frequency, volume, overtraining, “intensity”/load, etc. It’s true that HST uses the same volume as traditional split routines, but it spreads out that volume over the course of a week to maintain high frequency.
This will be my last post on this thread as well.
The definition of intensity used by Heavy Duty appears not to be the same as the one used by HST. Heavy Duty uses intensity of effort while you appear to be talking about percentage of 1 rep max.
As for volume, I have 2 workouts per week of 6 sets each which is sufficiently low volume and frequency to recover from my workouts. I don’t buy the %1RM theory of intensity but this would be better discussed on the new Mentzer thread if you like.
First let me explain what I mean by “The Ultimate Impotence” and then I’ll ask my question.
Thanks to most of the philosophical texts, most people today “know” that A isn’t A. It’s certainly something else. Existence doesn’t exist, it is certainly subject to their consciousness and the reality of things can be changed if it is never brought up as a problem. People who are ignorant enough to say something like that and actually mean it today are the presidents and premiers and whatnot. They are said to be the “leaders.” And there are these masses who generally believe all that too. Some of them believe every word of their “leaders,” some of them don’t. In any case, all of them are completely impotent when it comes to dealing with issues that deserve the title of “problem.” They are ultimately impotent - because they can’t deal with problems, which they can’t do because they are convinced that they’ll solve themselves if they ignore them and because they aren’t really problems the way they choose to see it.
On the other hand, there are Objectivists, who, in short, accept the axioms of Objectivism, thus being as capable to deal with reality as their intellect allows them (while the former majority is capable of evading realiy to the degree which their intellect allows them).
My question is this: How is it that Objectivism hasn’t won already? Is it just because the philosophy is so young in comparison to the opposite? Still, how hard is it to prove Objectivism better than some other philosophy which has no ties to reality?
Furthermore, why is it that the proponents of the primacy of consciousness are so disturbed when they only hear of a philosophy which is knowable and logically structured and tied to reality? Are they so afraid they’d suddenly have to start thinking rather than evading? Or is it just that the energy required for them to focus is so enormous that they’d rather do the evading all their lives.
Yet farthermore, how is it that reality itself hasn’t already collapsed the petty systems of anti-concepts which such people have built in order to use them to evade reality? How comes that even after millenia of such abuse reality didn’t bring down those who decided to ignore it?
[…]
Thanks to most of the philosophical texts, most people today “know” that A isn’t A. It’s certainly something else. Existence doesn’t exist, it is certainly subject to their consciousness and the reality of things can be changed if it is never brought up as a problem. People who are ignorant enough to say something like that […]
They are ultimately impotent - because they can’t deal with problems, which they can’t do because they are convinced that they’ll solve themselves if they ignore them and because they aren’t really problems the way they choose to see it. […]
Your package of questions itself raises many questions. Here are a few:
(1) What do you mean by power? A formal definition, if possible, would help.
With that established, I might better understand what you mean by “impotence” (lack of power?) and “ultimate impotence” (lack of power in every aspect of life?).
Then I could test your generalizations about non-Objectivists, for example, your claim that most people can’t deal with “issues that deserve the title of ‘problem’.” (Could you give some examples of such issues – and of issues that don’t deserve the title of problem?)
(2) Are you aware of the idea of “compartmentalization”? (See “Selfishness Without a Self,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 62 [hb, the last page of the essay].)
If you are asking why Objectivism hasn’t won, is because the majority of people aren’t philosophers. They implicitly accept the axioms of Objectivism (or I should say reality), but they don’t explicitly accept them. Objectivism isnt the first philosophy to say A=A, or that reality is independent of the observer. I think the only reason it hasn’t “won” is because of the large amounts of religious people, and that those who are atheists dont like the cultish aspects that are misconceptions of Objectivism.
Even I have felt alienated by Objectivists, because I differ in the realm of politics, so because I do not accepts EVERY thing Rand wrote, apparently I am not an Objectivist, even though I believe and support all other aspects of the philosophy.
My question is this: How is it that Objectivism hasn’t won already?
[…]
Yet farthermore, how is it that reality itself hasn’t already collapsed the petty systems of anti-concepts which such people have built in order to use them to evade reality?
I think what you’re asking is, “If the world is not fully populated by Objectivists by now, why has it not collapsed completely already?”
The answer is because there are enough people who (implicitly at least) hold enough Objectivist principles to keep it going. As Miss Rand pointed out in Atlas Shrugged, the looters exist at the sufferance of the producers. Without enough people acting for their own survival in accordance with reality, the world of man would indeed collapse.
d_s
My question is this: How is it that Objectivism hasn’t won already? Is it just because the philosophy is so young in comparison to the opposite?
YES!
Cultural change takes time. Not only that, but acceptance of the right ideas on a personal level takes time. Even when someone accepts Objectivism in their youth, it takes many years to integrate and automatize those ideas into one’s soul. If they discover Objectivism when they are older, they have already accepted and automatized other ideas and habits that may be difficult or impossible to change.
The Rabbi at the synagogue I attended as a child said that the reason God had the Jews wander in the desert for forty years after they left bondage in Egypt and before they entered the Promised Land was that people with a slave mentality were unable to live as free men. In forty years, two new generations were born in freedom and the old people died off.
I never bought the God stuff, but two generations sounds about right. Now that Objectivism is beginning to get a toehold in our culture and most children are exposed to it in their youth, I expect it will be the dominant philosophy in 20-40 years.
YES!
Cultural change takes time. Not only that, but acceptance of the right ideas on a personal level takes time. Even when someone accepts Objectivism in their youth, it takes many years to integrate and automatize those ideas into one’s soul. If they discover Objectivism when they are older, they have already accepted and automatized other ideas and habits that may be difficult or impossible to change.
The Rabbi at the synagogue I attended as a child said that the reason God had the Jews wander in the desert for forty years after they left bondage in Egypt and before they entered the Promised Land was that people with a slave mentality were unable to live as free men. In forty years, two new generations were born in freedom and the old people died off.
I never bought the God stuff, but two generations sounds about right. Now that Objectivism is beginning to get a toehold in our culture and most children are exposed to it in their youth, I expect it will be the dominant philosophy in 20-40 years.
I look forward to that day.
But let me point out that right now, humanity is not living in the desert and the collectivist mentality isn’t being cleansed. I think, if indeed your prediction is correct, that, just as nimble said - majority of people aren’t philosophers - they will remain non-philosophers. Just as they accept the unchecked and false premises of collectivism, so they will accept the premises of objectivism and individualism and to some degree all these will still remain mixed in their minds.
This, I fear, could be fatal to objectivism - not in the sense that it will be proved wrong because I think it can’t be - but in the sense that it will be the target of the attack of those who have such mixed premises in their minds, and who have done something more or less wrong because of this.
Ayn Rand said that man cannot be forced to think, if he doesn’t choose to think himself. Are the principles of Objectivism enough to make a man think and reach conclusions in the manner of a scientist (for Philosophy too is science)?
I think, if indeed your prediction is correct, that, just as nimble said - majority of people aren’t philosophers - they will remain non-philosophers.
That’s THEIR problem, not mine.
Just as they accept the unchecked and false premises of collectivism, so they will accept the premises of objectivism and individualism and to some degree all these will still remain mixed in their minds.
This, I fear, could be fatal to objectivism - not in the sense that it will be proved wrong because I think it can’t be - but in the sense that it will be the target of the attack of those who have such mixed premises in their minds, and who have done something more or less wrong because of this.
So what? They are in no position to influence what I think.
Ayn Rand said that man cannot be forced to think, if he doesn’t choose to think himself. Are the principles of Objectivism enough to make a man think and reach conclusions in the manner of a scientist (for Philosophy too is science)?
Not if he doesn’t want to. People have free will.
If people DO want to think and understand themselves and the world, Objectivism is a powerful tool. And they can benefit from it right now. “He who fights for the furture lives in it today” and those who don’t, don’t.
That’s THEIR problem, not mine.
Indeed it is. In America, it’s probably THEIR problem alone. Over here, it’s everybody’s problem. Remember We the Living? Things here, in Croatia, right now, are not much different than that. They are better, but they are bad.
Not if he doesn’t want to. People have free will.
If people DO want to think and understand themselves and the world, Objectivism is a powerful tool. And they can benefit from it right now. “He who fights for the furture lives in it today” and those who don’t, don’t.
I had a related thought after I posted this. I can do things my way and if the others cannot follow, who cares - it’s their problem. (That’s me discovering America :rolleyes: )
The answer lies implicitly in all of Rands novels. Society is shaped like an upside-down pyramid. The few, the strongest, the smartest, the best, support the unknowing, uncaring, unthinking majority. This is the direct opposite of so-called “communism” where the majority is the base of the pyramid and supports the greedy capitalists.
I also agree that most people are NOT philosophers. Questions such as these never enter their minds. Most people couldn’t care less whether or not taxes go up or down, if microsoft goes bankrupt, or Japan is wiped from the face of the planet. To most people the most important things are sports, cell phones, and music videos.
The answer lies implicitly in all of Rands novels. Society is shaped like an upside-down pyramid. The few, the strongest, the smartest, the best, support the unknowing, uncaring, unthinking majority. This is the direct opposite of so-called “communism” where the majority is the base of the pyramid and supports the greedy capitalists.
It doesn’t take a single soul to support a greedy capitalist, except himself. I’m sure you meant to say the bureaucracy or the politicians?
It doesn’t take a single soul to support a greedy capitalist, except himself. I’m sure you meant to say the bureaucracy or the politicians?
Yes I understand this. But from the Marxian point of view or philosophy, they would argue that the majority support the minority ie the capitalists, under a capitalist system. Obviously we know that under socialism, Half the population toils while half works for the bureaucracy.
Will a moderator please warn BIGBANGSingh. He has provided no argument for his position as you can obviously see by reading his last few posts. Also, I find this sentence to be completely irrelevant, if not a cheap shot directed at Objectivism: "It’s time to recognize that being an Objectivist doesn’t make you a good exercise physiologist. " No, being an Objectivist does not necessarily make you a good exercise physiologist. But think of the huge advantage you have in the fact that, as an Objectivist, you take reason and logic seriously.
You do realize that this thread is close to a year old, right? 
Why are they still unconvinced? I can think of two categories of reason. The first is to do with the philosophical lack of coherence of the objectivist position, and the second with ‘objectivists’ themselves.
The objectivist or rationalist position is untenable on many different levels, but I’ll take just two. First of all, the rationalist position is essentially one which relies upon reason and the evidence of the senses. If the senses were relied upon exclusively, no one would ever have set sail for the horizon. Time and again, rational positions adopted through reasoning from sensory evidence have been found found to be untrue, superstitious and childlike in their lack of understanding.
Associated to this, in every area where human endeavour, philosophy and science is at the cutting edge and pushing human understanding to its limits, evidence mounts that the ‘classic’ rational statement “A is A” (an overblown concept if ever there was one) is a fallacy. Quantum physics is the obvious case in point, where time and again distinctions have been made between local and non-local realities, and the importance of the influence of the observer in establishing just what ‘A’ is or is not. Heresy of heresies, these findings also support what mystics (seekers after truth who have heroically devoted lifetimes to the study of life and its meaning, by the way) have been trying to tell the rest of us for millennia.
This brings up another of objectivism’s bete noirs - the spectre of relativism. This is unfortunate for a philosophy which apparently sets so much store by the freedom of the individual: relativism is a liberation from the old certainties which kept the mass of people quietly accepting the irrational ‘truths’ which kept them subservient (actually, these truths were self serving ideas which underwrote an unjust and unearned monopoly of power in such institutions as the Catholic Church). If your truth is rational, and therefore unquestionable, how can I use rationality to assail it? After all, ‘A is A’. The objectivist mode of thought, by rejecting the possibility of competing rationalities, condemns human progress.
The second category of reasons that people might be ‘unconvinced’ about objectivism relates to the people who purport to follow it. First of all, a minor writer of fiction (and an even less authoritative philosopher) has been installed as a cult figure, her works quoted like the bible to establish the truth or fallacy of arguments. This is a puerile response which emanates from the same psychological place as all religions and cults - overdependence on authority figures and the refusal or inability to face life’s problems independently or with original thought.
Second, a lot of the web sites devoted to Rand and objectivism seem to double as dating agencies - hardly surprising, I suppose, that objectivists aren’t too good at attracting the opposite (or same? now there’s a radical thought) sex when
-
anyone who might dare to suggest (with consummate rationality) that the earth’s scarce resources should be preserved and nurtured, and that there is an incredibly complex ecological system which humans are in danger of unbalancing, is denounced as an unrepentant communist
-
pride in American Imperialism is a constant (and boring) theme where all American ‘action’ is seen as heroic, noble and true. This is shallow patriotism, the last resort of scoundrels, and when all is said and done relates to a minor and short-lived phase in human history. It is as if Classical Philosophy had based all its major premises on the quality of Greek civilisation, rather than a (rational) look at the wider meaning of life
-
the revision of history from a capitalist perspective has, ironically, a Stalinist ring to it. People still harping on about Vietnam? Come on, get over it - a Nationalist peasant struggle for independence (carried on for centuries against the Chinese and French amongst others) was successful and immediately implemented capitalism red in tooth and nail - an objectivist triumph if ever there was one.
Well, it’s been nice sparring with you. I could go on, but I suspect that my particular rationality will be deemed politically incorrect (I’ve seen a recent posting here that suggests warning a correspondent for an ‘insult’ against objectivism that was undetectable by mere mortals).
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
“The second category of reasons that people might be ‘unconvinced’ about objectivism relates to the people who purport to follow it. First of all, a minor writer of fiction (and an even less authoritative philosopher) has been installed as a cult figure, her works quoted like the bible to establish the truth or fallacy of arguments. This is a puerile response which emanates from the same psychological place as all religions and cults - overdependence on authority figures and the refusal or inability to face life’s problems independently or with original thought.”
I’ll take a shot at the above quote for now.
To say that she is a minor fiction writer may mean that she is unpopular. But I think you mean that she is not as good as the other writers in history. How will one gauge the grandeur of any one of her books. Is she unintelligable? Does she not paint for you the actions, the drama? Is it hard for you to understand what her character’s motivations are? Do you not see what the big theme turns out to be? Is her style ungrammatical and flights of fancy? Have you ever seen heroes like she portrays? And maybe that’s the problem–you never have–and now a challenge is put before you, like those dreams of god many people have? How will one achieve that character? It’s much work? And look how lonely they are. “Nobody likes them.” Look at the hurt that is thrown at them, look at the obstacles, see how people wish them dead, annihilated. And see how they fight back. And see how they win.
Perhaps the problem is that they win, and so suggesting that theirs is the right moral code, and method of thinking.
I will tell you that Miss Rand is talented enough to write a story where her heroes lose in a world that is set against them, in a world in which they have no will that is free to think and guide their actions. She can but she doesn’t. The reason she never has is because of her different values, her different philosophies.
She is just as good of a writer as Edgar Allan Poe but she prefers not to focus on death, loss and misery. She is just as good as Hawthorne but she is not a Christian and prefers to dramatize the important parts. And she is just as good as Moliere, except she would have the Misanthrope as a minor character as a foil for a man-worshipper. And she is just as good as Victor Hugo, except she does not have this Christian ideal, but she understands the role of conflict in plot, and how to integrate the theme and characterization, to have a profound effect just like Hugo. And she is just as good as Dostoevsky, only instead of following the struggle of a tragic murderer to deal with his guilt, she would create a new plot where maybe the murderer was justified, or she would accept Raskolnikov’s premises, but the detective would have HER philosophy. And she is just as good as Edmond Rostand but Cyrano would not choose to keep the secret of Christian’s poetical talent, and he would not wait over a decade to finally tell Roxanne how much he loves her. And she is just as good as Schiller except the Marquis of Posa would not be an advocate of Kantian freedom, and perhaps Don Carlos would choose Queen over the mission to free Holland.
She is a major writer, who has done the necessary studying in both literature and philosophy. She has mastered the rules of grammar in at least three languages that I know of. And she mastered English in her twenties as a Russian immigrant. And if you think she is just a minor writer it is because you have not read her. You have merely been intimidated by some chance passage … I guess. Now the decisions she makes in her stories are based on her philosophical values. This is true. And to argue against those decisions one should argue against her philosophy. There is ample opportunity on this forum to do so.
But you have chosen to walk into a heavily armed camp of intellectuals with rifle in hand to take random shots not knowing of the arsenal that is stored away in the minds of the intellectuals.
You obviously have specific opinions and there are plenty of threads to elaborate on them here. And the people here are very generous. For example there is plenty of opportunity to discuss specific of your notions about her literature and people will be glad to respond (I suppose).
Your approach reminds me of those people who would call a guy’s mother a dirty name. Obviously the initial reaction is annoyance, that will be automatic. But the son has plenty of evidence to prove that his mother is not whatever is connoted by the vulgar word.
Americo.
To throw in my two cents -
I agree with what Mrs. Speicher and with what a few of you have said so far. I know, to speak personally, the problem wasn’t necessarily lack of properly inducing Objectivism, but the lack of consciously inducing anything! Before coming to this conclusion, I hadn’t learned the power of ideas, and as a result I passively absorbed them for my environment - whether that be church, or debate club, etc. For teenagers especially, the idea that one can live a life in the moment, without thinking about the future or one’s goals in life is very tempting - I was sucked in for a while (living on Nirvana and skateboarding). But (to give this phenomenon its name) the “noble savage” idea isn’t a successful escape from ideas, it is a surrender.
Why are they still unconvinced? I can think of two categories of reason. The first is to do with the philosophical lack of coherence of the objectivist position, and the second with ‘objectivists’ themselves.
The objectivist or rationalist position is untenable on many different levels, but I’ll take just two. First of all, the rationalist position is essentially one which relies upon reason and the evidence of the senses. If the senses were relied upon exclusively, no one would ever have set sail for the horizon. Time and again, rational positions adopted through reasoning from sensory evidence have been found found to be untrue, superstitious and childlike in their lack of understanding.
By what means were these positions found to be untrue – if not through reason and observation?
Associated to this, in every area where human endeavour, philosophy and science is at the cutting edge and pushing human understanding to its limits, evidence mounts that the ‘classic’ rational statement “A is A” (an overblown concept if ever there was one) is a fallacy.
If “A is A” is a fallacy, then what you think are arguments against Objectivism might, in fact, be arguments in favor of Objectivism. Thus, you may be proving the validity of Objectivism. Thank you.
Quantum physics is the obvious case in point, where time and again distinctions have been made between local and non-local realities, and the importance of the influence of the observer in establishing just what ‘A’ is or is not. Heresy of heresies, these findings also support what mystics (seekers after truth who have heroically devoted lifetimes to the study of life and its meaning, by the way) have been trying to tell the rest of us for millennia.
But if “A is A” is a fallacy, then how do you know what quantum physics and mystics have been trying to tell us? If thier statements are not what they are, then they may be something different – and so what are they?
This brings up another of objectivism’s bete noirs - the spectre of relativism. This is unfortunate for a philosophy which apparently sets so much store by the freedom of the individual: relativism is a liberation from the old certainties which kept the mass of people quietly accepting the irrational ‘truths’ which kept them subservient (actually, these truths were self serving ideas which underwrote an unjust and unearned monopoly of power in such institutions as the Catholic Church). If your truth is rational, and therefore unquestionable, how can I use rationality to assail it? After all, ‘A is A’. The objectivist mode of thought, by rejecting the possibility of competing rationalities, condemns human progress.
If there is such a thing as “competing rationalities”, how do we decide which rationality is the appropriate one to use?
And does progress really depend on irrationality?
The second category of reasons that people might be ‘unconvinced’ about objectivism relates to the people who purport to follow it. First of all, a minor writer of fiction (and an even less authoritative philosopher) has been installed as a cult figure, her works quoted like the bible to establish the truth or fallacy of arguments. This is a puerile response which emanates from the same psychological place as all religions and cults - overdependence on authority figures and the refusal or inability to face life’s problems independently or with original thought.
Is Miss Rand really a cult figure? Gee, where do I get my secret decoding ring?
Of all the arguments against Objectivism, this it the lamest. It amounts to saying the philosophy must be false because those who believe it do so consistently.
Second, a lot of the web sites devoted to Rand and objectivism seem to double as dating agencies - hardly surprising, I suppose, that objectivists aren’t too good at attracting the opposite (or same? now there’s a radical thought) sex when
- anyone who might dare to suggest (with consummate rationality) that the earth’s scarce resources should be preserved and nurtured, and that there is an incredibly complex ecological system which humans are in danger of unbalancing, is denounced as an unrepentant communist
Now hold on a second! How can a suggestion be made with “consummate rationality” if there are competing rationalities? By what standard is one particular rationality dubbed consummate?
- pride in American Imperialism is a constant (and boring) theme where all American ‘action’ is seen as heroic, noble and true. This is shallow patriotism, the last resort of scoundrels, and when all is said and done relates to a minor and short-lived phase in human history. It is as if Classical Philosophy had based all its major premises on the quality of Greek civilisation, rather than a (rational) look at the wider meaning of life
You have seen no criticisms of American action at this web site?
- the revision of history from a capitalist perspective has, ironically, a Stalinist ring to it. People still harping on about Vietnam? Come on, get over it - a Nationalist peasant struggle for independence (carried on for centuries against the Chinese and French amongst others) was successful and immediately implemented capitalism red in tooth and nail - an objectivist triumph if ever there was one.
So the enslavement of the South Vietnamese and subsequent murder of many thousands of them constitutes capitalism and a triumph of Objectivism? Mass murder = Objectivism even though Objectivism condemns the initiation of force?
If this is the nature of your mental processes, no wonder you do not trust observation and reason.
Well, it’s been nice sparring with you. I could go on, but I suspect that my particular rationality will be deemed politically incorrect (I’ve seen a recent posting here that suggests warning a correspondent for an ‘insult’ against objectivism that was undetectable by mere mortals).
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Oh, I see. You just dropped by to lob a few lame insults instead of attempting to understand Objectivism. But then, how prosaic it is of me to use a term like “understanding”. After all, if there are competing rationalities, there must be competing understandings, and his understanding of Objectivism must be just as valid as mine.
- the revision of history from a capitalist perspective has, ironically, a Stalinist ring to it. People still harping on about Vietnam? Come on, get over it - a Nationalist peasant struggle for independence (carried on for centuries against the Chinese and French amongst others) was successful and immediately implemented capitalism red in tooth and nail - an objectivist triumph if ever there was one.
The Communist victory lead to capitalism? Capitalism is red in tooth and nail? :huh:
Spot the frontal assault on reality everyone.
Well, it’s been nice sparring with you. I could go on, but I suspect that my particular rationality will be deemed politically incorrect (I’ve seen a recent posting here that suggests warning a correspondent for an ‘insult’ against objectivism that was undetectable by mere mortals).
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Translation: Hello. My name is Troll, Troll McTroll. I am here to troll. Troll, troll, troll, troll! Right! Off to attack Gondor in daylight while the will of Sauron endures! Please patiently refute all my rubbish in Sisyphean fashion instead of dismissing is as being an obvious troll.
p.s. Pay no attention to the fact that I have favoured nothing at all and only tried to refute things. This is in no way the classic sign of a Troll.