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 3


Post 60

Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 11:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The original is not available right now, but www.Powells.com will put you on a notify list.... otherwise, there is a corrected [by her] copy in the latter printings of the hardbound or trade versions of Anthem...

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 61

Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 1:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I read AS at the age of 11 or 12 - 1959 or 1960 - because it was the last book of several hundred I had read of my wannabe-sf-author Aunt's collection that looked like it might possibly be science fiction - which it technically is.

I didn't meet another student of objectivism until high-school, and he was a very aloof, chill, better-than-thou person who never exchanged more than a few sentences with me or anyone else that I noticed.  I don't have a clue as to his name. 

I qualified for the Georgia Governors' Honors Program (where they took the top 400 public high-school students and sent them to a college campus, with star-quality lecturers, for the summer) in both English and Chemistry.  The kids there (high-school sophomores or juniors) were universally very bright and generally incredibly well read.  I think that a handful of them were avowed objectivists, but most, or a high percentage anyway, of them had read AS. 

However, the dominant intellectual theme was Marxism.  I didn't get along all that well with the Marxists, but it turned out that they were much more in tune with the science fiction that was my reading mainstay.  Again, the alleged objectivists came accross as extremely anal to the point of hostility. 

In college I had a similar experience.  Only a handful of people were self-proclaimed objectivists, and they were largely unapproachable.  My impresssion is that the main problem with spreading the philosophy has been the typical psychology of its alleged adherents, especially the utter failure to make the assumption that the person one is disagreeing with must have had some kind of reason for their position.  Instead, the "objectivist" either berates them - like that's going to convince them of anything - or walks away in a virtuous huff.

Once one makes that assumption, then it is not a matter of confrontation, but rather of exploring where they went wrong.  Often this involves taking their framework and translating it into a common set of ideas that you both agree with, and then demonstrating within that common framework what it is that you're saying that is new.

For example, with a Marxist there are innumerable points of intellectual congruence to build upon.  They accept rationality (leaving aside the implicit contradictions with true rationality and the Hegelian dialectic, or the idea of intellectual class determinism) as a standard, they claim to be scientific in their approach, they even frame their position in terms of egoism.  This gives you a strong base of premises to start examining and from which you can work to the major points of disagreement.


Post 62

Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 9:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve, do a search for a first edition on abebooks.com

The way you talk about your wife on this forum, you better watch out she doesn't think you're cheating on her on-line.

Ted

Post 63

Sunday, July 29, 2007 - 9:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now that is interesting. What makes you say that Ted?

Post 64

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 3:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
He's kidding...

Post 65

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 5:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
...or is he? ;)

Post 66

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 6:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Sabbath is Made for Man, Man is not Made for the Sabbath

I think "needling in a hopefully not unfriendly way" is a better way to put it.

I was a bit surprised to read:

"The problem she is having, as I see it, is what most people have a problem with when they are introduced to a new way of thinking; she wants to incorporate the concepts found in The Fountainhead with old concepts and presumptions about the world. Of course, this will only lead to frustration and eventually the dropping of the better." [emphasis added]

People do have free will. Rand's ideas are powerful and liberating if presented in the right way. One need not become an Objectivist in order to live a happy life or have a happy marriage with an Objectivist. None of my direct family or my three long-term relationships have been with or have "converted to" Objectivism. But they all understand my positions and respect them. When we do disagree it is without rancor. And most often, our best interactions are when they say something "Objectivistically Correct" but without having a philosophical explanation for their insight. For example, a family member once told me that she loved me "not unconditionally like I should" but for my virtues. I paraphrased Atlas Shrugged, and validated her comment. I do the same thing talking about art and politics with my lovers, friends and relatives. The nicest thing you can ever do for a person is give them an explicit reason to validate their sense of honor, their benevolent gut feelings and their well-founded joy. Some people are unsettled by my atheism. I let them know that I have no battle with God and that if God exists he is also an Objectivist, and no just God could resent a person who does the best with the mind he is given. An artist friend of mine who is not an Objectivist has benefitted greatly from my validation of his intuitively Romantic values and from my lessons on explicit art theory. He has read Atlas Shrugged ands Romantic Manifesto, devouring the books and marking them so much with notes and highlights that he even took his tattered copy of Atlas to a book-binding serviced to preserve his remarks. He is not the kind of person who feels comfortable being happy. He travelled by himself to Italy and before he went I not only told him the value of the art and the civilization he would see, I also told him that he had a right and even a duty to himself to be happy. I grabbed him dramatically and told him to remember one thing - that he would be sitting calmly at some point and realize that he was happy. I told him that when this happened I wanted him to realize that he was happy and why, and I told him that I wanted him to be happy that he was happy. When he returned he told me that I was the ghost that had haunted his trip, and said that I was right, that he was happy, and that he was even happier when he remembered what I said as he sat in the piazza in Florence.

The fact that our friends are not explicit Objectivists is not a blemish on them or a mark of failure. Don't wheedle your wife into becoming an Objectivist. Validate her better instincts, and she will come if she wants to and love you the better for it even if she never reads another word of Rand. But keep setting a good example and eventually she will. To paraphrase a famous Rabbi, Objectivism is made for men, men are not made for Objectivism.

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/30, 10:46pm)


Post 67

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 6:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
oops! wrong thread...
(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/30, 10:45pm)


Post 68

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 7:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay, and the title and subject of this thread was?

Post 69

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 8:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Philip is right. I've gotten us off topic.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 2:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello Erica, and Hello All,

I am the "Jerry" that Erica mentioned above.  I'm a noob here, so bear with me...

The first time I encountered the idea of "Objectivism" was when I first met Erica.  Because our meeting was simply a casual social event, neither one of us approached the other with a philosophical treatise in hand.  But, when we did sit down and begin to talk, it was immediately apparent that the other had an absolute love for the multitudes of life.  Almost like machine guns going off, our discussion shot from music to football to literature to politics to beer to philosophy, ect.

Now the first thing about her that impressed me was how naturally she moved from one topic to the next, as if they were all related to one another.  And they were, at least to me...and apparently to her too.  She possessed a certain thoughtfulness that surpassed the bounds of  "what-ever" we were talking about and embraced all these things for how they fit into the bigger picture of her life.  It seems that at our first meeting we spent a number of hours not so much talking about a number of different topics, but actually just one...our outlook on life.  We analyzed the hell out of whatever came up and broke things down until they seemed to make sense or at least raise sensible questions.  Thrown into the mix was Erica's recommendation to read Rand's work.  She reassured me that it wouldn't be a waste of my time and that I would probably love it (which I did, and still do).

I'm not sure if I would call Erica the first Objectivist I ever met because ...GOD do I hate the idea of having to live up to someone elses ideals (say that last part with a desperate and/or exasperated tone of voice).  She is certainly the first person with whom I've sat down and actually discussed Rand and Objectivism.  And we both seemed to find a kinship with many of Rand's ideas, which have had a great positive effect on our lives.

So, my first impression of philosophical Erica?  I was blown away.  It was a real pleasure to meet someone with a consistent, coherent and personal philosophy...or way of life.  Is she or was she an Objectivist?  I don't know...ask her.


Post 71

Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 3:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Welcome, Jerry.

So what have you read? Do you have areas of disagreement with Rand? Do you intend to read more, or post here more? If you intend to stay here you should fill out your profile - you can leave any questions you like blank.

Given that you seem to be more interested in what Rand calls "sense of life" I'd recommend you read her Romantic Manifesto if you haven't already. It's 100 pages of 24 carat gold.

Also, real Objectivists aren't just interested in Objectivism or in anyone else living up to their standards. You should just live up to your own.

If Erica is not an Objectivist, then I'm a Schulzian!

Ted Keer

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 72

Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 5:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, to be a fly on the wall....

Erica is way way smart.


Post 73

Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ser una mosca a la pared? Es muy peligroso, alguien podria juaquearte! Como ya te dije, es mejor ser bucheada que juaqueada, mujer!

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


User ID Password or create a free account.