Should an objectivist repent? :)

I take pride in all the things that I do well and take complete responsibility for the mistakes I make. They go hand in hand, unless your an evader.

This is really the bottom line Ethan.

Post 41

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 4:40pm

Shayne,

I almost didn't answer because I don't want to spar with sour-pusses. But I find you intelligent so I will write something.

You wrote:
"Well we wouldn't want anyone to think themselves better than anyone else, now would we? Especially in an Objectivist forum."

I'll tell you what, dude. I'll leave the entire thing to you. Consider yourself better than the whole shebang around here. Go for it.

Personally, I'm really too busy living my own life and producing my own values to be comparing myself to anybody else (unless it is a professional comparison for a contract or something like that). I just don't have the time. I'm serious.

I believe that the playful bantering that sometimes occurs on SOLO is a sign of the goodwill and happiness of the participants. These same people write soberly and take ideas seriously and when they find it appropriate - I read it everyday. Also, I disagree heartily with your gratuitous rudeness and name calling and I will completely tune you out if you keep on spitting in a place I am growing to love (SOLO).

My sincere wishes that you find some happiness because you sound so very unhappy. I mean that too.

Michael

Post 42

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 6:24pm

Michael: You missed my point, in part because I didn't put it well, and in part because you are presumptuous and read what you want to read.

I don't go around comparing myself to other people. The issue here is that I'm disappointed that many of you don't seem to care much at all for philosophy. Someone comes in asking a serious moral question and you care more for the jokes and playful banter than to give a correct answer. Or maybe it's just that most of you disagree with the Objectivist answer, I don't know, it's entirely unclear to me. (Though if someone says without qualification "Should you repent? No!" then clearly they don't agree with Objectivism. If everyone stands by and lets that answer slide, then I wonder how important they think Objectivist ideas are.)

You were the one who characterized this disappointment as "I think I'm better" - well I do think it's better to care about being correct than to be a care-free slob. Your criticism of me is tantamount to blaming me for having higher standards than you, which is an ironic criticism in an Objectivist forum. That was the point I was trying to make.

I don't "spit" on Solo. I do spit on some of the rotten behavior and sloppy thinking that sometimes goes on here. If you want to associate yourself with that or make any more presumptuous and insulting remarks about my general happiness, then by all means, please tune me out. If you were really sincere you'd reply privately not in such a way that it appears as if you're resorting to ad hominem.

Gratuitous name-calling? Never happened. Every name I used was there for a specific reason. Well I gave my reasons for using it, do you just want to pretend I didn't? Or maybe you gratuitously used the word "gratuitous"? In any case I don't follow you on that one.

Post 43

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 7:02pm

(sigh)

OK. Here we go Shayne,

You just don't get it. How can you do that and be so intelligent at times? So let's start...

You: "Though if someone says without qualification "Should you repent? No!" then clearly they don't agree with Objectivism."

I personally think that in the context, i.e. without qualification, this statement means something more along the lines of an Objectivist not needing to feel guilt. As much as I try, I can't see it as a philosophical justification of hedonism and denial of Objectivism. That to me is really forcing things. Why do that? Just because you want to argue with someone about something?

How about another?

You: "I'm disappointed that many of you don't seem to care much at all for philosophy"

Did you even read the posts? Or were you so enamored with the idea of finding a hook (the repent thing) that you could hold up to everybody and admonish them for overlooking it that you just didn't care about what they said? I personally read a lot of philosophy in those posts.

I could go on, but then I will start doing a Justin Raimondo thing of sparring on name calling and nitpicking point-by-point. I find that really boring.

I am sorry you felt insulted by my remark on your happiness. I was not being sarcastic or facetious and I did not mean that as an insult. I really do believe, from what I read in your posts, that you are unhappy. And I really do wish you happiness.

As far as all these whim-worshiping hippies around here, I have yet to see one. Sorry... OK, let's use Objectivist jargon, "A is A." So I haven't seen any hippies yet. I will not call someone I don't agree with or understand a hippy without seeing the flower-power acid-pot free-love stuff.

But OK, I'll even go there. I'll get real hippy right now about your sour-puss joyless spirit.

Me: "Man, you are blowing my high."

Michael

Post 44

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 7:29pm

God, repenting...is such a strange concept, well, at least to me but I have no religious background, thank god!

I thought Robert's reply was excellent in regards to keeping a context of younger works and how we can evolve and even change fundamental beliefs over time.

Shayne quoted Rand about morality; enjoyment and living but focused on past mistakes. I quess making amends for past mistakes is ok, but, for me, it would take a lot of effort, worse than going to the dentist, if it wasn't relevant to my future happiness or life. If it was, I think I would enjoy the experience.

Michael

Post 45

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 7:48pm

Michael: You say you don't want sparring and really there's nothing else to do with your post but spar. Well if you're going to spar anyway, at least spare us from having to read the insincere comment that you don't like sparring.

You attempt to affirm that you truly were sincere, and that you didn't mean it as an insult, and then you say "I'll get real hippy right now about your sour-puss joyless spirit." Well if that's sincerity I'd hate to see you being sarcastic.

Anyways I think you just read what you want, because I don't see how you can honestly not have at least some sympathy for my interpretation of what went on in this thread. There was no "context" from which to infer that people were promoting pride and justice until I stated it; up until then it was just "don't worry about what you might have done wrong, get on with your life" crap.

Basically what I read from some of you is that you want me to be more friendly and easy-going. Evidently you feel right in haranguing me about how I come across, but I'm wrong to get on your case about being anti-intellectual. Some guy tells me to "fuck off" and no one says a thing; I say someone is acting like a "hippie" and you write these long-winded criticisms of me. Your priorities are screwed up, *and* you're hypocrites. Not a good combination.

Post 46

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 8:50pm

Shayne,

I gotta go to bed.

Nobody has ever told me to fuck-off on SOLO yet. But be my guest. Be the first. You already included ME in that hippy comment. Now you have also called me presumptuous, insinuated all kinds of unpleasant stuff about my person (which is included in your SOLO member generalities), stated that I have my priorities screwed up and that I am a hypocrite.

Do forgive me, but I don't like you at all for that.

Well... just to be fair, I did say that you seem unhappy and that the tone of your original hippy comment was pretentious, sanctimonious, name calling etc. (and it was), but I have not descended to what you are doing.

What the hell am I doing talking to you anyway?

NAMESAKE!!!!

HELP!!!!

Let's get back to some art, reason and good things - and beautiful things like yourself.

To talk a little about Ian's situation, I could not agree with you more about repenting being an enjoyable experience if it were to ensure future happiness.

I imagined when I wrote it that Ian had spent long hours reading and absorbing the Bible. this would not go away in one day. If you look at my first post, you will see a book I mentioned by a woman who worked her way out of Christianity. She did this in plain language and narrated her voyage in essentials, refuting the Bible and Christian doctrines in the order of importance to her - and in the order she gave them up. It was a wonderful and enjoyable read - and it was extremely scholarly without being dry.

I thought that this might help Ian just in case there were guilt feelings or a feeling of need to repent for his Christian past. I too often see Objectivism used to scapegoat trumped up dragons (Rand called this setting up and knocking down straw men). I wanted to help him avoid that mistake. That is why I chose an atheistic work that was not specifically Objectivist. (Also, nothing in Objectivist literature I have read tops Betty Brogaard in explaining how to give up the tentacles, one-by-one, of long years of Christian indoctrination.)

Now as to why I value your work and positive outlook so very highly: You don't even see these problems. You are too busy painting and looking for new things to marvel at. You laugh. You embody to me what I strive to be with Objectivism.

Talk to ya' later.

Michael

Post 47

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 5:49am

Michael,

Wow, what a glowing compliment and I accept it gladly!

Actually I empathize with Ian and Shayne. With Ian, the difficulty of resolving past writings, in STONE, of a fundamental different or flawed view of life...is something he may not be able to resolve. I know this sounds flippant but being an artist you can claim artistic license i.e. being free to do anything you like! But I think the book recommended by Michael is the way to go for Ian, just be honest and open about his path and he will find a very appreciative audience.

Shayne on the other hand, reminds me when I was a hot-headed Objectivist, in my twenties. I don�t know anything about Shayne: his age; occupation, etc. He talks a big game about philosophical ideas, well�not really a big game but more like a rant, but philosophers like Seddon, Machan, Hicks, and Kelley don�t rant or sound anything like Shayne, they explain.

When I was in my twenties I was fuming about an editorial on WQXR, classic music radio, about how America needed to state sponsor musicians�I complained in writing to them and then they invited me to rebut on the air, 60 seconds. Hahahaha, I read von Mises in preparation�after I did it I thought: �What the fuck am I doing?! I am an artist not an economist nor political scientist��the truth for me was that I was struggling so hard to become the artist I wanted to be, I still had some difficult years ahead to acquire the skills that would enable me to unlock my visions, that I was evading what I really needed to do. �So shut the fuck up and get to work on your art! Make it real.�

To Shane, a rant is not serious, what you do is unless what you do has little or no import, if so then you really need to step up to the plate and create something.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 3/19, 5:52am)

Post 48

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 6:21am

Michael, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I will also add that trolls aren't really human and don't deserve the same respect. He's just a buzzkill.

I personally think that in the context, i.e. without qualification, this statement means something more along the lines of an Objectivist not needing to feel guilt.

That is exactly what I meant. Damn you're good. *purring*

MN, I saw your website and your paintings are magnificent. Luke just sent me a Solo brochure for my local club and it says that they have calendars of your artwork. Are you still doing them?

(Edited by katdaddy on 3/19, 6:28am)

Post 49

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 9:30am

Newberry: No one in this thread asked me to better explain. They simply agreed, disagreed, or ignored my point. But I'd be happy to explain if someone thinks something I said needed explaining. I initially thought it was simple, that all I needed to do was point out the issue and someone familiar with Rand would get it. A few people did. The rest whined, and are still whining.

I think people in this forum generally love rants. So I don't know what you're talking about there. You don't want to take me seriously, that's your choice.

I agree with you that creating is more important than criticizing (well you didn't put it like this but I take that to be what you mean). But I disagree that that means we shouldn't rant or criticize. Presumptuously, you ask me to step up to the plate and create something. What makes you think I haven't already?

Post 50

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 9:35am

Katdaddy: Michael says that an Objectivist doesn't need to feel guilt, and you say this is exactly what you meant.

Well that's exactly why I'm "ranting", because this is totally wrong. Of course an Objectivist needs to feel guilt, when it's earned. Objectivism rejects unearned guilt, not all guilt.

(Is that enough explanation?)

Post 51

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 9:44am

Shayne,

"Objectivism rejects unearned guilt, not all guilt."

Most everybody around here already knows that, dummy.

But I have some questions:

1. What are axiomatic concepts?
2. Are emotions proper tools of cognition?
3. What is the most rational economic system?
4. Is altruism bad as a philosophy?

That's OK for a start.

Now I have a really great idea. Why don't YOU teach us all about it?

Michael

Post 52

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 10:04am

Most everybody around here already knows that, dummy.

OK I get it: if most know then that excuses you from being so sloppy. I guess you're one of the minority who doesn't know it then?

If I'd written something like you did and it led someone astray on what I was thinking, I wouldn't have insulted the person who got the wrong idea, I'd have owned up to my sloppiness and corrected myself (actually I did that once in this thread). You pretend to be the civil one here but really you act like a mindless high-school bully.

Please Michael, keep defending what I'm criticizing, you're only making it more plainly clear that I have a point.

Post 53

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 10:16am

Shayne to Michael:

"You pretend to be the civil one here but really you act like a mindless high-school bully"

You got it all backwards, dude.

Post 54

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:03am

I'm hoping the following will clarify rather than muddle what's being discussed here about guilt.

Guilt is the emotional result of the evaluation, implicitly or explicitly, that one has betrayed one's values.

Yet Ian's values weren't the same when he was a Christian as they are now. They have radically changed. He made errors in his thinking that led him to embrace Christianity. He has "seen the light" so to speak and now realizes his values have changed. There is no guilt needed for changing one's values. And there is no guilt needed at having worked to achieve one's former values.

Had Ian been an Objectivist - had he truly understood the philosophy and evaluated it as right - and then written or published or participated in the things he did when he was a Christian, then guilt would have been appropriate. He would have been betraying his own mind.

But now? No. He can, out of sympathy for his others and a recognition that it took him a long time to see the truth and understand it, he attempts to spread the word that he has changed his mind and seen the error of his ways - then he can. But it is not morally necessary. Just as he had to arrive at the recognition of the truth himself, so must others, with or without him.

I would further venture to say that not even regret would be appropriate. Regret is the wishing that something could have been done differently. It is a refusal to recognize reality as it is, and as such is a denial of Objectivism's roots. I don't think it's evil or reprehensible. It's simply an error in one's thinking.

Jason

Post 55

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:24am

Very well put Jason. I agree with you. My summary: When you make an honest mistake, recognize it, acknowledge it to others if necessary, move on. Honest mistakes do not require guilt, regret, remorse, or repentance.

Post 56

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:24am

Jason,

Thanks for getting this thread back on track. I agree with everything you wrote. But I also have to add something. Value judgments are not formed using reason without emotions. I mentioned this in another post, but I will recapitulate.

There was an article in Time magazine a while back about people who were subjected to lobotomies. The brain cells that control the emotions were physically destroyed. The resulting people were able to reason but no longer focus for very long, structure priorities or use their knowledge in any kind of survival capacity. They could sit on a railroad track, see a train coming, know it was a train and was dangerous, but not feel the need to get off the track.

So... when there is a major change in thinking, like what Ian did, the rational part of the mind can do it instantly. The emotions are a little slower, though. That is why I suggested a clear and enjoyable step-by-step history of one person's journey out of Christianity. So that the emotions can have the time to catch up. After all, religion may be based on faith and not reason, but it is very powerful emotional stuff.

Of course, I am presuming that Ian used to honestly embrace Christianity, especially as he said he wrote about it.

Michael

Kitten - Git back to the kitchen until I make sure that other thing doesn't turn into a fistfight or shootout. //;-)

Post 57

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 1:17pm

Jason: I never said that Ian should necessarily feel guilt. For the most part my focus has been on the question that was asked not how it applies to his particular case. The way this general question was answered by the other posters was flat out wrong, probably because they were focusing on Ian and not the question.

I chose to focus on the question and not Ian, first because the general question is important, and second because I don't presume to know enough about him to tell him whether he, for instance, betrayed a value or not.

I think your comments on guilt address part of the issue, but they ignore the fact that many religious people are so because they are evading and betraying their values at a deeper level. Everyone will say they value truth and right, and I think at a high-level they do, but their methods betray their values. For that guilt is earned.

I was raised in religion, and I wouldn't say I was completely innocent for accepting it, though certainly it's very difficult for a child to contradict everyone around him. My main vice was to assume that these people must know what they're talking about because I'm young and inexperienced and they're old and wise. As I matured, and even before I read Ayn Rand, I recognized that this was a betrayal of my own values, and rejected religion on the grounds that I didn't understand that it was true. It wasn't good enough to grant others benefit of the doubt on this matter; I either did or did not have a positive belief in it, and I just didn't.

Now I think there was some degree of vice in what I did. But for those who preach religion while not really understanding that it's true, the vice is generally far deeper; this sort of person knows deep down that he doesn't know, but still acts as if he is certain while trying to get other people to do what he doesn't know is right.

Post 58

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 1:37pm

I wanted to add one more thought to my previous post, on the role of pride in this.

Anyone who has been religious either accepted it passively, lazily, or they did it by actively trying to rationalize it and make it make sense. When a person adopts a new value system, like Objectivism, they are prone to the same sorts of habits that they'd used all those years in religion.

If you accepted religion without much active thought even though you saw contradictions, then your passivity doesn't go away just because you say you like Ayn Rand. It's a life-long habit that you've taught yourself. In order to really grow you have to get past that, and in order to get past that you can't just brush aside all those years where you were lazy, you have to get serious about it.

Likewise, if you were a rationalizer, you've built up mental habits that allow you to work your way around any contradiction between your thought and reality. You've got years of practice at it and it's not going to go away just from saying you like Ayn Rand either. The role of repentance here is to revisit some of the times you rationalized and fully understand the nature of your bad thought processes in order to more easily recognize them in the future.

What the people in this thread are saying is to essentially ignore those parts of your character that allow you to do something that's horribly wrong (religion) for years on end. This is the antithesis of the virtue of pride, and completely at odds with Objectivism.

Post 59

Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 2:40pm