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 unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


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

Wednesday, May 4, 2011 - 6:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What a wonderful story!

I did notice a Freudian slip with this statement:

"I was reading books by the Christian psychiatrist, M. Scott Pecker (e.g., The Road Less Traveled) ...."

I think you meant "Peck" and not "Pecker"! ;-)

Like you, I was a Christian who felt utter dismay when a classmate shoved the provocative title The Virtue of Selfishness under my nose. I very nearly rejected his offer of the book. I am so glad that I did not. I cannot imagine the additional years I might have wasted floundering in religion had I not read it my last semester in college.

Post 1

Wednesday, May 4, 2011 - 2:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you, Ed, for outlining your journey with us.  I am sure that as any "travelogue" there was much that you experienced, but did not bring forward here.  Perhaps you will.  Clearly, you did not leap from one system of beliefs to another. You must have overcome barriers, found some paths easier than others, and so on. 

Did anything you read from Ayn Rand actually resonate with what you had accepted earlier?


Post 2

Wednesday, May 4, 2011 - 6:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

I did notice a Freudian slip with this statement:

Thanks, Luke. I edited it out.

:-)

By the way, I don't think Peck was a pecker even one bit (Freud-be-damned). I give him credit for opening my mind to a rich world of very important things. It was from him, not Rand, that I learned that ideas are very important and that they have consequences. Even now, I put him down as one of the greatest intellects of the 20th Century -- almost as smart as, and even more socially insightful than, Ayn Rand herself.

Ed


Post 3

Wednesday, May 4, 2011 - 7:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

I am sure that as any "travelogue" there was much that you experienced, but did not bring forward here.  Perhaps you will.  Clearly, you did not leap from one system of beliefs to another. You must have overcome barriers, found some paths easier than others, and so on.
I'll tell you more. Peck planted a seed in my head regarding God. Peck wrote a poem, I think it was in the book: The Road Less Traveled & Beyond: Spiritual Growth in the Age of Anxiety (or something like that). Anyway, in this poem, he referred to God as a She -- and that floored me. I just about threw the book across the room. But then I kept thinking about it. Could I prove God was a dude and not a chick? No. Well ... what was my problem then?

I tried not to think about it too much, because of how unsettling it was for me to have my spiritual guru plant that damn seed in my head. The nerve of him! But: once in, never out. If I can't prove God's gender, then what else can't I prove? I was starting to feel that maybe this whole business of faith needs to be put on trial. If God created me to be rational, then why in the hell would he demand from me that I close my mind to critical questions like this regarding his very validity?

The seeds grew into weeds and my neat, intellectual garden needed trimming. I mentally struggled for several months. It took me a full 2 months just to read the Atheism and Abortion entries in the Lexicon I owned. It took about 12 months for me to go from being "full-Christian/Socialist" to being "full-Objectivist." You could say I was brought down to earth at the same age (33) that Christ was brought up to heaven.

:-)

Ed


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Monday, May 9, 2011 - 6:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great story Ed!

It reminded me of when I was a Socialist. Yet, I don't think I could quite call myself one back then since my understanding of Socialism was superficial at best.

Your story also reminded me of my own introduction to Objectivism, even though I wasn't aware of it at the time. It was two years ago when I was a Junior in high school and one of my favorite English teachers recommended the book, The Fountainhead, to me for a scholarship contest (which I didn't do very well in since I only had time to read half of the book and send in an extremely rough entry essay. I also struggled with procrastination.)

The ARI did see fit to send me a copy of Atlas Shrugged as a consolation prize. Thus began my own journey into understanding a philosophy which was mostly contradictory to my previous ethics. I was in awe of the new and unfamiliar ideas presented in the book; to say the ideas shook me to the core would be a gross understatement. The heroes were inspiring and fantastic; I wanted to be just like them. However, my initial reaction to some of the ideas wasn't markedly different from yours either. I found the idea of "Selfishness as a virtue" laughable at first, then thought provoking, and then enlightening.

It took me about a year to read Atlas Shrugged. While reading it, I began reading and finished Anthem; only to complete Atlas Shrugged a little while later.

I went on to purchase The Virtue of Selfishness, which is my current Objectivism reference book. Soon after this I bought We The Living and devoured it.

It's been two years since I was first exposed to Ayn Rand, and my journey to understand Objectivism is not over yet. :)

Post 5

Monday, May 9, 2011 - 6:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Kyle.

You have a great story, as well.

:-)

Ed


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Saturday, June 25, 2011 - 2:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is done.

I have finished reading Anthem. I just finished it about 5 minutes ago and I feel real good about that, both as an accomplishment that stands on its own, and by experiencing the moving writings of Rand. I can't believe it, though. I mean, I have trouble reading fiction in the first place, and then I choose this book that goes a full 93 pages before even mentioning the word "I"?! Aaaaaaaaaagh!

As Rand so eloquently stated (p 97), I am done with the monster of "We"!

:-)

My next fiction book is going to be: "We the Living" ...

Ed


Post 7

Sunday, June 26, 2011 - 6:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Ed.
My route was by process of elimination.

I continually hear 'disparaging' or down right vicious remarks either raised about AR, or in response to any mention of AR: and 'always' from people who I generally view as being 'wrong-headed'.

Which, for me, was a clue that I needed to look further into this 'philosophy' - glad I did.


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Sunday, June 26, 2011 - 9:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

As Rand so eloquently stated (p 97), I am done with the monster of "We"!

:-)

My next fiction book is going to be: "We the Living"
Do you notice that these two statements are somewhat disjointed?   :-)

Sam


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, June 26, 2011 - 9:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed: "As Rand so eloquently stated (p 97), I am done with the monster of 'We!'"

:-)

"My next fiction book is going to be: 'We the Living'."

Sam: "Do you notice that these two statements are somewhat disjointed? :-) "

Yeah, "The Monster of We the Living." You know those zombie/classic lit mashups, like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?? I've been waiting to see We, the Living Dead.

Someone needs to get on that, stat...



Post 10

Sunday, June 26, 2011 - 9:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
:-)

You guys crack me up!

I plan to post a list of my favorite quotes from Anthem. I circled them and put notes in the margins as I first read the thing ...

Ed


Post 11

Sunday, June 26, 2011 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Terry,

You know what they say about publicity ...

:-)

Ed


Post 12

Sunday, June 26, 2011 - 9:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Afterthought:
You know, someone with some real gumption should break out and start an RoR online book club.

Just an afterthought.

Ed


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Monday, June 27, 2011 - 2:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Congratulations, Ed! I confess that I am not much for fiction, myself.

I got through most of my literature classes with Classics Illustrated comics. What I did read was mostly science fiction, and of that, I kept to the mainstream: Asimov, Heinlein, some Philip K. Dick, and then a string of cyberpunk in the 90s. But along the way, on my own, I did read The Call of the Wild, The Bridges of Madison County, and The Sun Also Rises. I also read The Odyssey and the Iliad (out of sequence, there), the first in the Cambridge dual-language and the the other just the Modern Library edition.

Just to say, I appreciate your predicament. As compelling as Rand's non-fiction is, she developed it in order to write stories about people. Her ideas about life, the universe and everything, are dramatic; and therefore they are best delivered via drama.

The scene in Anthem where he brings the light to the council and they reject it and punish him for it is previewed thematically in some scenes of We the Living, but gets ever more focus and expression in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged of course.

That is critical to understanding her view of capitalism. It reflects some of what von Mises attempted to dissect in The Anti-Capitalist Mentality. The constant thread of what is commonly called "Nietzschean" in her philosophy is the unspoken dichotomy between her affinity for the potential of the common person and her contempt for those same common persons as a collective. That person will move into a home that has electricity, but that person would not electrify their home. It is a cliche that if you invent a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door. It could happen; people do recognize their own interests sometimes. Mostly, a better mousetrap enables you to eat more mice because no one else wants it.

Atlas Shrugged could run another 1100 pages and she would never have identified the essential character: the salesman. In many ways, she accepted Arthur Miller's Willie Loman. Her capitalism lacks middlemen. Grocers and hardware stores about the limit of her scope. Like her heroes Equality 7-2521, Howard Roark, and the home team of Atlas, she expected that a better idea, product, or service, would sell itself directly to those with the intelligence to know an improvement in their own lives. She apparently did not see the difference between describing a thing and explaining to someone else the value to them in it.
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/27, 2:53am)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Monday, June 27, 2011 - 4:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MEM: "Atlas Shrugged could run another 1100 pages and she would never have identified the essential character: the salesman. In many ways, she accepted Arthur Miller's Willie Loman. Her capitalism lacks middlemen."

Where would Howard Roark be without Roger Enright? Where Roark was the architect, he didn't know how to "sell" it, and needed an Enright to intermediate his work to the world; pity we don't see more of how Enright does that, as he is an "unsung hero."

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Monday, June 27, 2011 - 5:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A related point that I've noticed is that nearly all of Rand's business heroes deliver hard goods and services; nobody is a speculator, venture capitalist, futures trader or what have you.  Midas Mulligan is the only exception that comes to mind, and he's only one step removed, providing startup capital to "real" businesses.  Hopton Stoddard, Roark's client, got rich by investing rather than by founding or running a business, and the book is rather contemptuous of him.

I think this lack of middlemen or salesmen is a dramatic matter.  Rand had a story to tell and couldn't stop to deal with this.  Her books are good sources or moral and economic instruction, but that's not primarily what they are or why she wrote them.


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Monday, June 27, 2011 - 7:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ed, one of my favorite quotes from Anthem:

“We alone, of the thousands who walk this earth, we alone in this hour are doing a work which has no purpose save that we wish to do it.” (§I)

Persons who work on productive projects outside their daily work for making a living experience that precious liberty. I think there can be some of that deliciousness too in one’s commercial work insofar as there is personal enjoyment in that line of production.


Post 17

Monday, June 27, 2011 - 7:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pter: "I think this lack of middlemen or salesmen is a dramatic matter.  Rand had a story to tell and couldn't stop to deal with this.  Her books are good sources or moral and economic instruction, but that's not primarily what they are or why she wrote them."

Fair enough. It's to her credit that she leaves the reader wanting more.

Perhaps I'm spoiled by the likes of the Star Wars Universe novels, where characters who get maybe a second on-screen get their stories told in seperate novels. Imagine the stories that could be told about Rand's secondary characters..."Who is Roger Enright?"



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Monday, June 27, 2011 - 8:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Write it, Joe - just change the names....

Post 19

Monday, June 27, 2011 - 11:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wonder if someone had ever explained Arbitrage to her, what she would have said?

The response I get is uniformly, 'You have to be kidding!'

High speed computer systems battling other high speed computer systems, tiny fluctuations in separate markets in the noise coupled with massive leverage, and voila; (nearly) risk free trading.

(Minus the odd LTCM fiasco, or occasional freakish spike/drop in marked prices as all these battling computer programs meander themselves into an uncharted mutual instability...)

No problem with that, as long as when they bite the worm, they bite the worm, and folks chasing miraculous 'risk free' returns get burned, they are the ones who take the haircut(and thus, the market education for playing with uncertainty in dynamic computer programs off running by themselves looking for millisecond trends to take advantage of.)

But can anyone explain why US taxpayers should bear the socialized 'risk' for this kind of 'risk-free' nonsense?

Or why the 'service' it provides to the markets is so crucial that it is worth not only embracing moral hazard but meeting it with flowers, chocolates and dinner?

Gamblers gambling with computer code running on dueling computer systems doing the same thing should eat their own misses/messes, period. From where is the crony based corruption that has arranged otherwise? Heads we win, tails we don't lose?

No wonder the economies are crap. Does this fall under the category of beast building, or carcass carving?

Is there anything else going on in the markets simultaneous with these arbitrage plays? From where are their 'risk free' returns extracted?

Where is the value for value? Where is the value added? Where is the risk-reward analyis?

This is Kramer and Neumann, without the actual effort of driving a postal truck full of empty glass bottles that they collected from NYCity to the Midwest, conducted at some fraction of the speed of light...



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.