RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Ideas Require Application

Friday
July 7, 2006

Ideas Require Application by G. Stolyarov II

Mr. Stolyarov refutes the prevalent mindset among intellectuals that truth must be pursued solely for its own sake. Rather, he contends that the purpose of truth is to enable the individual to survive and flourish. Mr. Stolyarov presents a theory of the three vital components of truth and an imperative for intellectuals to turn their minds outward toward benefiting themselves by means of the external reality. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (14 messages)

Post 0

Friday, July 7, 2006 - 7:59pm

Link

Edit

-=Applause=- Well done, Mr. Stolyarov.

Post 1

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 12:25pm

Link

Edit

I agree. I sanctioned it.

Post 2

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 9:44pm

Link

Edit

Mr. Anspaugh, Mr. Marotta,

Thank you for your kind words. I am glad that you read and enjoyed my article.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 3

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 6:51am

Link

Edit

Stoly,

With respect, I think there are very few of us who have trouble overcoming and thriving in an irrational world, the difficulty comes in surviving in an immoral world.

Post 4

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 7:38am

Link

Edit

One could claim they are the same.....

Post 5

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 3:56pm

Link

Edit

Mr. Davison,

Thank you for your comment.

It is true that the difficulty of surviving in an immoral world is greater than the one I addressed in this essay. To prepare for overcoming this difficulty, then, it is best to have all other factors on one's side. That is, it is prudent to gain all the material, intellectual, and social capital that one can without compromising one's moral principles. After doing so, one will be in an optimal position to resist immoral influences and even to inject some positive degree of morality into his surroundings. As always, leading by example is the best way to do this; it does not have to be an example set on a grandiose scale, either. The proper knowledge, effort, industry, and principles applied on any scale or level in life will have positive consequences. I am certain that you and many other people on RoR already know this idea and apply it regularly.

This is not to disagree with anything you wrote; it is only meant to clarify my position.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 6

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 3:08pm

Link

Edit

Stoly,

Thank you for your response. Let me clarify my meaning by direct example.

When I was young and starting out in Theatre (my chosen profession) I had already read Ayn Rand and adhered to a strict morality of judge and prepare to be judged; i.e. I refused to kiss up to people simply because they could give my career a boost, I refused to call the banal good despite the hurt feelings and the enemies that resulted from being 'brutally' frank, and I eschewed the casting couch despite many offers. It got me nowhere. I was barely eaking out a living in the boonies.

In mid-life I made a conscious decision to make the right contacts by not judging; said nice things about everyone I met and everything I saw. I made friends and contacts hand over fist. It's called networking and my career flourished.

I am now comfortable, retired and too old to set any example other than to tell a few private students this story.

This is what I mean my the difficulty of thriving in an immoral world. Some will see here the difference between Roark and Keating. The analogy is not, however an exact one. Keating never had the ability, I did. I call it a rational decision to thrive.

Post 7

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:33am

Link

Edit

Mr. Davison,

Thank you for your clarification.

I see no abandonment of morality in the course you took for yourself. Ayn Rand wrote extensively that one does not owe irrational and immoral people the truth-- especially if stating the truth will damage one's own life and values. Thus, being "brutally frank" with irrational and immoral people will only endanger oneself via the reactions of those people to one's "brutal frankness."

As a matter of fact, whenever an irrational or immoral person asks me the truth of what I think about him, I consider such a question to be comparable (though milder in degree) to a robber-murderer's question about where my family is hiding. I owe neither person the truth. To preserve my values, I will give him an answer that will keep him from endangering me.

Furthermore, I can be fully honest without being brutally frank in the things that I do say. Rand also wrote that every person has rational elements to his life and personality; full, consistent, unmitigated irrationality means death, for one can only survive by using his reason. So in giving my opinion of a person, I will try to underscore the genuinely rational aspects of that person's life. Let us say the person is a rabid leftist ideologue with heavy drug addiction problems and a tendency to spit on sidewalks. However, the person is also good at mathematics or at his business or is a loyal friend to an individual I respect. I will focus on the positive qualities if that person asks me about my opinion of him.

This can even help the person make the best of his situation and improve himself morally. If he increasingly comes to consider his identity as shaped by his positive, rational qualities more so than by his negative, irrational ones, then he will endeavor to develop his positive qualities and neglect to increase his negative ones. By complimenting him on the good that is in him, the rational individual might even contribute to the increase in that good.

So what you did was fully rational and moral; you kept any threats to your advancement at bay while you developed your material and intellectual values to the fullest. You indeed made a "rational decision to thrive," and your example is a good one to those who wish to make the best of their lives while surrounded by immoral and/or irrational people.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 8

Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 4:26am

Link

Edit

Stoly,

Ayn Rand wrote extensively that one does not owe irrational and immoral people the truth-- especially if stating the truth will damage one's own life and values. Thus, being "brutally frank" with irrational and immoral people will only endanger oneself via the reactions of those people to one's "brutal frankness."

I wish I had understood this as a young Objectivist I think this a great stumbling block for those who try to follow the Objectivist philosophy. The ancillary issues of black and white, honesty, integrity, judge and be judged and the art of compromise are difficult for the novice to place into context.

This would make a great article if you are up to it.

b

Post 9

Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 6:45pm

Link

Edit

Robert, I don't think you have to flatter or kiss up to people to succeed socially -- NOR do I think that integrity requires you to say everything that you think on every occasion, in the most blunt and abrasive manner possible.

There IS such a thing as being prudent as to when you open your mouth, and when you don't -- and how you phrase criticisms. If a person has mixed premises (most do), you can simply say, "I disagree," with a smile. The words tell him that you don't buy his ideas; the smile tells him that you don't consider him to be a monster for holding those ideas.

If you know someone who has many good qualities, and many values to offer you -- but who is deeply Christian -- there is an easy way to proceed: limit your association to those non-religious values and interests that you share, and just don't discuss religion. If the person brings up religion, change the subject. Most people will take the hint. If he insists on continuing, say (with that smile, because he is a friend), "Well, I don't share your religious views; and I would hate for those kinds of private matters ever to get in the way of our friendship." Then smile some more.

He'll probably never again discuss religion with you.

That sort of thing. I believe about 95% of potential conflicts of this kind can be deflected or avoided, without the slightest breach of integrity, the slightest falsehood.

Only those who view their lives as being missionaries for Objectivism -- who see each social encounter as a Battle of Premises, and who believe they must zealously spread the word to everyone they meet -- will feel compelled to walk around with a philosophical chip on their shoulders. You can succeed with most people in everyday life simply by exuding benevolence, and by expecting it in return...and by steering diplomatically around approaching shoals.

Only when confronted directly on matters of conviction do I believe that you are obligated to take a clear, blunt moral stand. But if you don't have that chip on your shoulder, you'll find that such occasions are remarkably rare.

Incidentally, my Summer Seminar lecture, "The Anatomy of Cooperation," focuses directly on the issues of integrity and "compromise" in social settings. TAS should be posting it online before long; I think it addresses many of the issues implied in this thread.

Post 10

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 5:49am

Link

Edit

Robert,

As I said to you privately, it is the difference between Lillian and Camaron. Worth an essay.

Post 11

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 8:44am

Link

Edit

A couple of thoughts...

"What is the object of truth? The object of truth is life"

For some, the object of truth is life, for others truth is itself the object. Why does this have to be either/or? Some pursue the practical applications of truth like the science/technology link, while others pursue a narrower vision without direct links to practicality. Both have merit.

Disdain for the opposing camp has no value on either side in my opinion. It's pretty clear there's value in both pursuits.

Bob

Post 12

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 10:41am

Link

Edit

When you pursue mathematics, think of commercial and technical uses for the mathematics you pursue. When you study science, never forget technology.

Mr. Stolyarov,
As a scientist in a basic discipline, I must whole heartedly disagree with your above statements. Generally speaking, what drives a scientist in his quest of knowledge is his insatiable curiosity to understand the natural phenomenons. What governs the pursuit of scientific discoveries is the intrinsic law of nature and a strict adherence to that law. Nothing else. The considerations of technological application, commercial success, or even a cure for cancer are only secondary to the law of nature.

That's said, it is perfect desirable to have a fraction of scientists or even a majority of scientists working on certain specific and applicational problems. But in science, we do seek knowledge for its own sake.

You ask that what's use of it? How would it enhance our life?

Well, what is the use of a better understanding of the natural world that is all around us? Would it enhance our lives? Would it enable us to better understand ourselves? I found an old post of mine that expressed my view on this issue.

Post 13

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 6:07pm

Link

Edit

I agree with Hong. I would say, however, that the passion for knowledge as such has built into it the awareness that knowledge is what keeps us alive and thriving.

We look at the structure of the atom for the same reason that a tiger looks at a plain.