Objectivism's newest recruits are it's most dangerous enemies.

At least, that's what I've been slowly finding out about myself. Would you agree with my statement? It seems like I always end up misrepresenting the Objectivist philosophy through the things I don't know. ie, people ask me what my justification for certain things are, and I haven't yet read about them. So I try and deduce what I think the justifications for them are, but I'm oft off.

Perhaps it's best for me, and other aspirant's, to keep to themselves until they are strong enough to face the others?

Post 1

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 9:06am

Brandon,

I am sorry you got that impression. That is an outright shame, to tell the truth.

The worst enemies of Objectivism are the new "owners" of Objectivism, regardless of where they are.

The best friend of Objectivism is your own thinking mind - and the works of Ayn Rand - and the works of those she sanctioned - and the works of people later whom you have to select with your own thinking mind.

Stay true to your own perceptions, conclusions and values - and do the reading. Do not stop asking questions and testing your ideas with intelligent people.

By doing that, you have no idea what a tremendous friend to Objectivism you are.

Michael

Post 2

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 9:34am

Brandon,

My advice in those situations is to not feel the need to answer right away. Tell them you'll get back to them. In any case, if your going to try debating Objectivism with people, you should really get up-to-speed with the traditional arguemnts and increase your understanding of the fundamentals. The more you understand something, the easier it is to explain it to someone else. You should also keep in mind that most debates with others center on politics and ethics. In Objectivism, these subjects build on the foundation of metaphysics and epistomology. Start there and you'll be better prepared. Check out the war section on SOLO as well.

Ethan

Post 3

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 11:35am

It's a potential, I don't know if it's absolute...
I initially rejected the idea of being a "student of Objectivism"; I read the books, understood the ideas, I was an Objectivist, damnit! But looking back to 96, when I first read ATLAS, and the events in between then and now, I can say that I was a bit hasty. It's one thing to agree with the ideas, it's another to actually practice them consistently (not that an Objectivist can't make errors). But Objectivism does require a certain ruthlessness with oneself, and emotional factors due create many conflicts within the former Christian/socialist/insert former label here/. For some, it takes years to deal with the conflicts, and if not ironed out, they can justify the idea of a new recruit being Objectivism's most dangerous enemies.

Post 4

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 12:23pm

Brandon, refer the people who ask you questions about Objectivism to the SOLO site, explaining that you are too busy living your life and that plenty of people here will cheerfully take the time to explain the concepts to those willing to do their own reading. As Ethan stated, do "not feel the need to answer right away" -- if at all.

Post 5

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 12:44pm

Brandon,

This is pretty much Rand's point when she asked newcomers to her philosophy to identify themselves as "students of Objectivism." I know that this could sound wonky, but you have another honest alternative, which is to refrain from labeling yourself until you can live comfortably with all the situations that the label gets you into. It does not make you an enemy of Objectivism to get yourself into those straights, just a klutz. But your identification of the situation is a badge of heroic honesty, and does you credit.

Post 6

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 1:55pm

You may be right, Brandon, but it is not a big deal. Recent converts are often difficult in any ideology- based organization. That would apply to all organizations, but few actually are founded on ideas or ideals. (How dare you claim General Motors makes better cars that Ford! -- you don't hear that much... Though I think the Windows-Macintosh thing may continue forever.) You might also consider what happens in a bar in a military town when boots from different services collide while drunk. Sargeants major and CPOs never do that.

Personally, after about 20 or 30 years of Objectivism, somewhere between ages 35 and 45, I stopped mentioning Ayn Rand at all. I just identify the facts of reality when it seems socially appropriate to do so.

You never have to cite your sources when speaking extemporaneously. "I'll get back to you on that covers a lot of sins."

Post 7

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 11:59am

Hi Brandon,

There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." And since you are new to Objectivism, find a safe place to ask stupid questions.

Me personally, I don't claim to speak for Objectivism or other Objectivists, although I have yet to find anything wrong with the philosophy. I only speak for the Philosophy of Eddie Wood.

Eddie

Post 8

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 12:44pm

Brandon-

Just remember that what you are learning is for you. The fact is that you probably are already experiencing phenomenally better things in general even with what you have fully in hand now.

You could be worse, you know- it doesn't sound like you have Born Again syndrome, where you start running around trying to create converts. That's natural, by the way, if you are excited about something, but it's supposed to wear off after a time.

You'll be alright.

Post 9

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 1:14pm

I think that the problem, any problem, always resides within oneself.
Ciro.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 11/08, 2:19pm)

Post 10

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 2:17pm

I'm in the exact position that Brandon is. I attempt to speak for Objectivism, but because I've dealt only casually with it, and not very often, and am not a good extemporaneous speaker, I end up sounding like either an ignoramus or an arrogant fool. Some of you may recall a thread I made recently where I related my experience with some of my university's philosophy club members. It was not pleasant, and I was "invoking" Objectivism. Not good for someone who hasn't studied it much. I can't honestly call myself an Objectivist yet. I agree wholly with the fundamentals. I just don't live an Objectivist life. Makes me think that that "Advanced Objectivist Training" is a very good idea, so long as it doesn't get polluted with sheer opinion or subjectivist hooey.

Post 11

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 2:39pm

Mark-

You know, sometimes it's easier to do it by learning a lot about the things you are pretty sure you disagree with. You have to understand the opposing idea if you want to debunk it. That's why I said www.importanceofphilosophy.com is useful, because it covers most of the major things (altruism, etc...) from an Objectivist standpoint. If you go over there to their bad ideas section it might help.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 11/08, 2:39pm)

Post 12

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 12:44pm

Hi Brandon:

I don't have a clue as too what objectivism is. That has not stop me from forming opinions that have been researched.

Can you imagine where I live fairy tales and myths still hold water and the ignorance I endure daily?

Voodoo , superstitions , mysticism and a lack of science and technology and they look to the sky , drug & guns for anwsers to their problems.

Your on the right track.

Post 13

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 4:09pm

Thank you all so very much for the excellent advice.

Whoa, cool, Mark. I just checked out your profile and it turns out we have quite a bit in common! We're the same age, both love video-games/video-game design, and are only a state apart! WE SHOULD HOOK UP AND MAKE OUT.
(Edited by Brandon Miller
on 11/08, 4:16pm)

Post 14

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 4:10pm

Something what can be very helpful, invaluable, really, is to find writers that have the ability to make a case for or against something using principles taught in Objectivism. There's a whole bunch of them here, and a whole bunch more that are often referred to in this forum.

If you haven't already, I strongly encourage you to read the articles published by Lindsay Perigo here. He's entertaining, brilliant, convincing, compelling, and usually right in the course of his argument.

Another author you absolutely must seek out is Robert James Bidinotto, also a member here. If you're able to find any of his older pieces, from the 90's and late 80's, grab them. Brilliant stuff.

Others include Ed Hudgins and Jennifer Iannolo, whom I adore (she's squarely aligned with Objectivism, but doesn't call herself an "Objectivist," last I heard).

For the heavy technical stuff, check out Chris Sciabarra. Wonderful writing.

I know we live in an "instant" culture, but some things really do take time. Learning anything new can take time. Give yourself that time. Forming good arguments is a learned skill.

You can do this.

Teresa

Post 15

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 5:26pm

Teresa,

I second that, but I would also like to add the articles of Joe Rowlands for nutshell applications to everyday living (and some theory - I still highly favor the All or Nothing mentality article), and Tibor Machan for current affairs.

Frankly there are articles by many others here who will profit newcomers (and even oldies) greatly.

The list of articles at the beginning if you log out also is very good.

Michael

Post 16

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 6:09pm

Branden, when you know that one thing is different from another thing, you at that time are neither the one thing, nor the other thing. If you are one of the two things, you cannot know that one thing is different from another thing. You are a third knowing individual ;-).

Post 17

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 8:40pm

Brandon wrote "WE SHOULD HOOK UP AND MAKE OUT."

That might work if I weren't straight.
But I am looking (for girls)--much.

Post 18

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 11:56pm