RoR: Forum

Ciro,

I don't think I get what your trying to say. What you are saying, especially post #19 I disagree with in the literal sense and figurative sense.

Ethan

Post 21

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 8:01am

I don't disagree with the article's conclusions, but I have a question.

Having been absent from Objectivist circles for several years I think I must have missed something. When did 'benevolence' become an Objectivist virtue? I don't recall seeing it in the list in Galt's speech. (No, that's not the only possible spot...) Did it become a virtue because Kelley wrote a book asserting it was? Or does anything become an Objectivist virtue because it's consistent with the underlying principles?

(Believe it or not I have little interest in the whole 'open/closed' debate, but I thought I would raise this specific question, since I've seen the assertion about benevolence made practically since I first arrived here -- and used as a club most of the time.)

Post 22

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 8:08am

You don't?
It's so hard to understand that objectivists love to kill their own kind.

Post 23

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 8:09am

Joe R, I've been thinking about this problem for a long time. One thing we have to accept lock, stock and barrel is that there are (potentially and actually) rotten people here. People who choose to make our lives harder instead of easier. It's everyone's job to identify those people and to pluck them away. (They tend to go away when ignored .)

I support your decision to focus on activism. An Objectivist ad hoc committee on ______________ could be very successful.

What specific area are we qualified and determined to change? Let's brainstorm.

Post 24

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 8:29am

Ciro said:

It's so hard to understand that objectivists love to kill their own kind.

Some do, but I'm not one of them. Are you suggesting that that habit is part of Objectivism and what it means to be an Objecitivst? If so I wouldn't bother hanging around with them :-) Just because an Objectivis or someone calling themselves an Objectivist makes a mistake or is a misanthrope jerk, doesn't mean that we should disregard Objectivism. If someone treats me like crap, I don't write off people all together.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 12/05, 8:48am)

Post 25

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 8:31am

Jeff,

Not to speak for Joe, but I would say that Kelley identified a virtue that was consistent with and invaluable to life with others and therefore living as an Objectivist.

Ethan

Post 26

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 8:37am

Are there any plans to activate the RoR University forum?

I've read all of Ayn Rand's fiction, some of her non-fiction and OPAR but I've always found it hard to articulate Objectivist philosophy to outsiders in a clear and concise manner. I think part of that problem is not having the thorough understanding of Objectivism that I think I could get from a formal and interactive instruction/discussion with some of the heavy-weights around here.

I think this would be a great step in becoming more focused on activism.

Post 27

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 8:41am

Some do, but I'm not one of them.
Ethan, I never doubt that!

Post 28

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 8:54am

Ethan,

I've always been a great admirer of Kelley's work. Sounds like time I picked up his book.

No, Ciro, I honestly do agree with (most of) Joe's conclusions in that article. And I admire your consistent display of zest for life.

Post 29

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 8:57am

Ryan, consider becoming familiar with the history of Philosophy if you haven't already. The W. T. Jones series is quite good for starters and then you can hit the original texts. If you have a good understanding of classic philosophy and literature to draw from you'll be well-grounded intellectually.

Forgive my presumptuousness if you are already a PhD in World Lit.
:-)

Post 30

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 9:21am

Very good article, Joe.

I like the idea of being nice to another because of mutual (or harmony of) interests as a philosophical principle.

I think that this should be emphasized over time so that it will "take." I foresee that without such emphasis, people will tend to forget.

Michael

Post 31

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 9:25am

Ciro, in whose name are you now arguing your own views?

One argues one's views because one thinks the truth matters--that good consequences flow from recognition of the truth. The wider the truth, the more good results. (Assuming "a morality for living on Earth.")

Post 32

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 9:29am

Lance:

Thanks for the suggestions. I took an Intro to Philosophy course in college so I have a basic knowledge of the main Western philosophers/philosophies. I do want to read more of the actual texts in an organized, sequential manner, it's just a matter of finding time to do it.

I understand that ultimately it is my responsibility to study Ayn Rand's works along with Peikoff's and Kelley's if I want a thorough understanding of Objectivism. But I do think it would be helpful if I could learn from some here in a more formal manner.

It's not a matter of knowing the basics. I can repeat A is A, Existence Exists, etc... until I'm blue in the face. It's that ultimately, I want a deeper understanding of the basic axioms and their derivatives so that I can explain them to others clearly and concisely and be prepared for the questions/counter-points that are sure to come.

Post 33

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 10:00am

One argues one's views because one thinks the truth matters--that good consequences flow from recognition of the truth
Who can disagree with that!

Behind a video monitor we can all be brave.
I remember my second grade teacher gave me a project once, I had to show him with out talking, who I was.
Since then I have understood that to show people who we are we don't need to talk, but to show.

Post 34

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 10:21am

I Thank You Joe

For showing the leadership necessary for the promotion of this idea that Benevolence is Intrinsic to Objectivism.

I have believed this always. I came to Objectivism through Ayn Rand's non-fiction about 1964. Having spent my life, up to then with failed Christians, I saw Objectivism as a modern version of the golden rule. In order to trade successfully OVER THE LONG TERM, you must deal fairly. Unfair trading cannot be sustained without force. Trade is a very complex process. Successful sales personnel are highly skilled social beings who are truly benevolent to their customers. Read Ciro's Website. He knows how to cook AND how to sell what he cooks.

I see the problem with ill-tempered Objectivists rooted in two notions. The first, is a pre-existing lack of benevolence in the persons who still carry chips off the old block, on their shoulders. The second, is the unrealistic one-dimensional characters in Rand's novels.  Unlike most posters here, I knew a little of Objectivism as a philosophy for several decades before I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time, this summer. Dagney Taggert was no schmoozer. I think that Atlas Shrugged is extremist writing that promotes the Randroid mentality that so many Objectivists mock.

I say, let the novels die a natural death.  Go to the Ayn Rand Non-Fiction, and see the benevolence with your own eyes. Those who can't see it should check their shoulders.

Thank you again Joe, for this article, and for this new RoR site. I thought I would have to lurk behind the wainscotting forever.

Sharon

Post 35

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 10:21am

Ryan,
Interaction is highly valuable, but if you can afford it many of the ARI lecture series tapes/CDs are very good. So is Branden's now decades old presentation. Peikoff's History of Philosophy is worthwhile, and I've heard praise from those I trust about Understanding Objectivism. Kelley's Evidence of the Senses is good, though more narrow in purpose, because of the excellent presentation of some foundational issues. (See Stephen Hicks PhD dissertation, too, after you've had time to absorb some more material -- if you're interested in solid foundations.)

Time and effort will help you overcome some of the difficulty you mention. You sound sincere -- good luck. I envy you your new adventure.

Jeff

Post 36

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 10:30am

Well, you didn't answer my question, but never mind.

Post 37

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 11:03am

I am sorry Rodney I didn't mean to do that.
I argue in the name of what I see.

Post 38

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 2:54pm

I liked your article, Joe, it was on point to what you're trying to accomplish.

Ciro, hah! "Eat your own children"... Shit, sometimes I've seen them rip them out with rusty coathangers.

Benevolence, in classic O'ism, is treated somewhat like a sanitary pad. You use it when the need comes, and dispose of it as quickly as possible.

rde
Master of pre-dinner imagery.

Post 39

Monday, December 5, 2005 - 11:38pm