About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 2:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What's that?  [Nate puts hand to ear]  Oh no!  It sounds like Alexander Hamilton came back from the grave to renounce Objectivism based on the misunderstanding of a few Randoids.

OOOOOooooOOOOOOooooOOOO!  Scary.

Yeesh.  The nerve of attacking Reason in the name of one of the most intelligent people in the history of the world.

Here's a clue, Hammie: try reading what Rand herself wrote, instead of gleaning her philosophy from a bunch of new converts and some quotes taken out of context from this site.  If you had the patience to hammer out that post, I'm sure you have the free time to read some Rand.  Then if you come back and make a well thought argument, we may listen.  Until then, back to the afterlife with you.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 3:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

A. Hamilton, is this really your first post here? It is quite remarkable. In a single -- albeit very long -- post, you have insulted Lindsay, your host; you have insulted the members of Solo; and you have insulted all Objectivists. And you have managed to be insufferably patronizing. What will you do for an encore?

Barbara Branden

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 3:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara Says: A. Hamilton, is this really your first post here?

Barbara,

An interesting question indeed? There is already a Soloist whose post strongly reminds me of watered down truthfan, and another of watered down Orion (who may be making his 3rd appearance - reincarnation). On the other hand I could be wrong about this since lunacy always seems to draw its fair share to philosophically oriented forums. I cannot with any certainty say that A. Hamilton here is the resurrection of any Solo ghost of the past, but I would not be surprised.

Fortunately you need not worry about my credentials and authenticity.

I AM GW CORDERO

Master of filosophy, and part-time courtesan

((((((((*!*)))))))))


 


Post 43

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 4:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I have been rude.  I have given offense.  Such was not my intent.  I apologize.  I have wrestled in with Objectivism, libertarianism, law and philosophy for many years, but assumed a familiarity with you all that was not warranted.  I will bother you no more.  My most sincere apologies, Hamilton.


Post 44

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 5:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A. Hamilton, there is no need for the melodramatic exit. Its just that the combination of no one having seen a post by you before, and the tone of the post by which you introduced yourself was bizarre to say the least.  Many of us go overboard from time to time, so if this is indeed the case, then what appears to be a sincere apology will more than suffice and you should feel free to post at Solo in the future.
 
George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 1/19, 6:01pm)


Post 45

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 8:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason, thank you for those kind words.  I almost missed them in the fray.  :)

A. Hamilton,

In short, don’t collapse the atrocities of religious doctrines that possessed political power into the study of God and theology.
How can one separate cause from effect?

Jennifer


Post 46

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 6:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I actually like the post.  I related because I am not that inspired by the endless rhetoric going on.  Rather, I need to see action.  Accordingly, I was thinking of making a post about some activism I plan to pursue soon, in the form of posting quotes in conspicuous places throughout my high school.  This would be partly in response to seeing quotes posted up like,

"The purpose of life is to serve humanity"
~Joey Whogivesacrap

written in bubble letters and covered in glitter.  That was an actual quote, and all of the ones that seem to make it onto our walls are altruistic, idiotic, and come from random, unheard-of people.  I want to encourage some thought with Rand and others.

In the same way, I guess those really out there changing things are not talking at each other across the internet.  Regardless, this is not a forum strictly for world-changers, but for admirers of Rand.  Nonetheless, I plan, or at least hope to fit into the former category.  How am I shaping up?

In regards to NEM, I understand the need for them; I see a tragic shortage of inspiration and triumph now and for the future.  It remains an object of my life to become something, but now I have a word, NEM. 

I also find that the first place to start is with education.

suerte,
Michael

(Edited by Caned N Able on 1/20, 4:33pm)


Post 47

Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 8:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Redolent of  the thinking of that other great Utopian, Karl Marx, who hoped -- and believed--that society was evolving toward a way of life that would be far more fulfilling than either the modern or ancient situation. As he put it, 
. . . as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 3:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reuben,

Did you have a point?

Ethan


Sanction: 42, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 42, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 42, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 42, No Sanction: 0
Post 49

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"If we are fortunate, we can identify Nem among our friends—in my own case such names as Chris Sciabarra, Tibor Machan, Derek McGovern, Cam Pritchard, Peter Cresswell and Carol Potts, Larry Sechrest and Molly Hays, Chris and Cindy Lewis, Michael Newberry, Jeff Landauer, Marcus Bachler, Jennifer Iannolo, Joe Rowlands and many others come to mind ("heroic of physique" may be a stretch in some cases!). SOLO’s Writers-In-Residence Barbara Branden and James Kilbourne clearly belong there...These are Aristotle’s "noble-souled ones," Ayn Rand’s Galts, Dagnys and d’Anconias, real among us, in the flesh."

I was highly amused reading this. Think about it. At one moment several people are the "Galts, Dagnys" and at the next "maggots" and "bitches". Some of you may have, like the author of this quote, have mistook heros for villains and vise versa.. I am really fortunate that my good friends and ex-lovers have, over many years, remained special friends of mine. I would be horrified to miscalculate a mere 10% of the above–if that happened I would then be on the look out for my obvious lack of judgement.

Philosophers, intellectuals, artists, critics, teachers, doctors, psychiatrists, cultural directors are all people at some point are authorities on topics concerning humans. One question I have always thought of about trusting them is: do they have a flourishing type of character? Conversely, if they are miserable sons of bitches what do I have to learn from them? Perhaps all they really know, past all the intellectual cleverness, games, and one-upmanship, is how to become miserable.

When I was a teen I was attracted to intensity but I soon discovered that there was a qualitative difference between the good and the bad. The difference in scope of character is the difference between Michelangelo creating a sculpture and the moron who hammered it.

Some people view Objectivism as a hammer to wipe out the bad, the evil. Others view it scientifically. I see it as a skill that facilitates soaring creativity. I know my view of the future doesn’t have much to do with science, or constantly looking to obliterate evil, rather I look to the exceptional people to share flourishing with.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 5/05, 12:51pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 12:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I know my view of the future doesn�t have much to do with science, or constantly looking to obliterate evil, rather I look to the exceptional people to share flourishing with."


This is the most honest and human thing I have read lately. The thread itself, in light of recent events, has a bittersweet sadness to it. Wow.

John


Sanction: 37, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 37, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 37, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 37, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 12:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent, excellent points, Michael.

When I think of the myriad reasons why people become involved with Objectivism (or any philosophy), I am ever reminded of the Fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant. Even though reality is what it is, due to conflicting motives, each person perceiving it can "see" something different.

Some, as you suggest, read the novels and see heroically independent, creative characters who inspire them to emulate such actions in their own lives. Some see a system of understanding the world, and interconnecting that understanding -- a tool of endless exploration and boundless integration. Some see ingenious answers to the difficult questions of life. Some see reliable moral guidance for their choices and decisions.

Others, however, see in Rand's work a dark depiction and denunciation of an "irrational world." Still others see automatic, canned answers to all questions. Still others find in those canned answers arguments that can be wielded against others like clubs and bludgeons, in an endless contest of intellectual one-upsmanship. Yet others find ready-made rationalizations for why they have not succeeded or become happy in life -- or a fantasy world into which they can escape from the meaninglessness of their own vacuous existences -- or excuses to allow themselves to self-righteously sneer at their parents, humiliate peers, avenge themselves upon anyone who has ever snubbed them, or preoccupy themselves with witch hunts to "expose" the "moral faults" in others whose achievements they cannot hope to match.

Rand's books and philosophy can be "read," selectively, to mean any of those things. Why? Because what people find on the printed page usually depends on what they sought in the first place -- and also what they brought with them when they began to read. If they brought to their reading a yearning for a truly ennobled personal life, they will find it in Ayn Rand. But if they brought neurotic needs for escape, self-justification, superiority, revenge, the ventilation of frustrated anger, automatic answers to all questions, or excuses for committing evils...well, Rand's words can be selectively read and twisted to rationalize any of that, too.

In this regard, a dear friend once offered me very good advice. When judging people, he said, pay very little heed to what they say. Instead, "turn down the volume." Turn down the volume of their words, and instead of listening, just watch them. Watch what they do with their lives.

Watch how they live.

For self-defined Objectivists, watch what they do with these ideas.

That is how you'll truly know people -- not by their words, but by their deeds: by their actual achievements and behavior in the real world.

And if you find yourself having a difficult time visualizing the heroes and heroines of Rand's novels acting like the people you are watching -- if you find yourself saying, "Dagny or Francisco or Roark would NEVER do that!" -- then you will know that the ability to memorize and repeat Objectivist principles does not mean that they are living according to Objectivist principles.
(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 5/05, 12:53pm)


Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 12:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

This is a poignant reminder of why it is never a good idea to experience reality through an intermediary, even if that intermediary is Ayn Rand. The scope of optional values in life is almost limitless and the richness they can confer in our lives is far beyond any notion of ideological party line or agreement. What we should be fighting for in Objectivism is not ideological purity, although being right is a virtue, but that a person realizes his most exalted state of being within his cluster of virtues, universal human values and optional human values.

After a dinnertime conversation with you at last year's TOC Summer Seminar, I realized also how developmental that exalted state can be. I made a career change within engineering that I am ecstatic with. I went from time-intensive development engineering job to avolume manufacturing environment where I pick and choose what I want towork on. I also now hve more time to spend with my wife, I regularly play folk music with a nearby Irish trad group and a bonus is that my brother is in the same city (near Phoenix).

As Objectivists we must continually ask what is really important to us. What makes us happy? Everything else is window dressing.

Jim


Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 1:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In post #51 above, Robert Bidinotto speaks about the Fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant. That reminds me of a joke I recently heard about the five blind elephants who were standing around discussing what men were like. The first elephant marched over to check things out and returned, announcing that men were flat. The other four elephants agreed.


[Oh, BTW, excellent post Robert!]

(Edited by C. Jeffery Small
on 5/05, 1:58pm)

Just another example of the quantum mechanics effect where the experimenter alters the results of the experiment! :-)
(Edited by C. Jeffery Small
on 5/05, 2:03pm)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 54

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 1:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey!

I'm a NEM, too!

Michael


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 1:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert B. said:
Watch what they do with their lives.

Watch how they live.
Amen! 



Post 56

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 2:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Perception:

Identification:



Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 57

Friday, May 5, 2006 - 3:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gosh, this thread also reminded me of the Writers Report Cards article. I've never seen anything like this except the Culture Revolution!

Post 58

Saturday, May 6, 2006 - 7:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

Go on a little bit more, if you have the time. I would like to read your point of view on the similarities.

Michael


Sanction: 51, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 51, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 51, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 51, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Saturday, May 6, 2006 - 1:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

During the time I grew up in China, Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping were the number one and number two enemies of Chinese people. We were surrounded by seas of anti-Liu/Deng posters such as those in the above links.  While the brilliant military Marshal Lin Biao was Mao’s “most loyal second hand”. We had to chant “Long live Chairman Mao! Long live Vice Chairman Lin!” every morning at the threshold of our kindergarten door in front of their giant portraits. Then one day, a shocking news came that Marshal Lin had tried to defect to the Soviet Russia and only had his plane crashed in the desert of Mongolia. (Though many people suspected that the plane was shot down by Chinese missiles.)  It turned out that Lin was actually a deeply hidden counter-revolutionary after all. All his past brilliant campaigns against the Japanese, Chiang Kai-Shek, and the Americans were repudiated and erased from the text of the history book. A small red book of Quotations by Vice Chairman Lin disappeared overnight, and everything Lin had previously said was now taken under a new light.

Later, several other “rise and fall” incidents happened again and again. Deng would be reinstalled in 1974, purged in 1976, and then finally reinstalled again in 1978. There were also “Gang of four”, Hua Guofeng, Hu Yaobang, and finally Zhao Ziyang, who had risen and fell. Though none of these later characters had a fate as dramatic and horrifying as Lin Biao and Liu Shaoqi, who, as the Chairman of the People's Republic, were tortured to death by the Red Guards with Mao’s implicit endorsement during the Culture Revolution.

The phenomenon of first praising somebody to the sky and then turning the palm and denouncing them to be the worst enemy the second day had been very common throughout the history of the Communist Parties of both Soviet and China. The early Bolshevik theoreticians Nikolai Bukharin and Leon Trotsky come to mind. You may read about their fates described in Wikipedia in rather dry words, but it would be hard to appreciate the atmosphere in which those figures were first hailed as great as almost a god, and then were condemned to the lowest levels of hell in a blink of eye. And death were considered too good for them.

Thinking back, the only way that one could accept the Party’s ever changing versions about those people was to consider them not as a real living human being with flesh and blood, but as an abstract concept. A real human being will not change from an angel to a devil in one day, only an abstract being can. 

 
            Does what happened at SOLO bear any similarities to all of these? Perhaps only to a very small extent, and only in a sense that I haven’t seen anything that remotely resembles those phenomenons anywhere else in all my years in US. And those Communist Party histories are something that I am reminded of by the past and current events at SOLO.
 

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 5/06, 1:47pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.