[Christopher]

What does it mean to grow as an Objectivist?

Since joining this forum, I have self-noted that many of my posts often appear to take up positions contrary to standard Objectivist assertions. These contrary positions include attempts to recognize the good in religion, to support environmentalism, and to understand what is really meant when people claim to be altruistic.

Although I have never claimed to be an Objectivist (I claim only to be myself), I would assert that my beliefs developed through Objectivism have grown, changed. Years ago when I first began reading The Fountainhead, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged,... I recall the use of my mind to create boundaries, to redefine my beliefs, and to judge the world through my new and clear value-system. For many years, I became more confident in my judgments, more sure of myself. I came to believe fully in my beliefs, and to act on those beliefs fully.

Eventually I realized that judgment was only a small aspect of a fulfilled existence. Judgment had limits on its usefulness in real life. What I now value is understanding. So many people who never studied Objectivism demostrate Objectivist virtues, but they do so through another language, through a different style. I also believe that many of my previous judgments (such as against religion) often mimicked that catch-phrase - throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sure there's a ton of evil, but there's also much virtue. Perhaps it's important when first studying Objectivism that individuals make broad-sweeping judgments. Before the mind has the capacity to deal with the details, the gross boundaries need to be set. However, once confidence in those beliefs is established, there is room to begin wiggling and wandering.

What does it mean to grow as an Objectivist? I would claim that it means once personal beliefs have been established, the next step is to seek understanding beyond the scope of those beliefs. Seek to understand what others are saying even when it may initially seem contrary. These are just my thoughts. Many people here began studying Objectivism long before I could read! I wonder whether the experience is the same, and whether the road to growth continues to change.

Christopher

[general semanticist]

What you are saying applies to more than just objectivism. It is very common for people to be somewhat fanatical when they first "find" a knowledge system that they can relate to. I suspect this is because if you have been searching for something and you find it there is a great deal of emotional release, sort of like "eureka!". But as we get older we (hopefully) mature and realize that no system has all the answers.

[BaalChatzaf]

general semanticist, on Apr 3 2009, 04:54 AM, said:

What you are saying applies to more than just objectivism. It is very common for people to be somewhat fanatical when they first "find" a knowledge system that they can relate to. I suspect this is because if you have been searching for something and you find it there is a great deal of emotional release, sort of like "eureka!". But as we get older we (hopefully) mature and realize that no system has all the answers.

No system has all the answers because we don't have all the questions. I suspect we shall never exhaust the universe of meaningful questions. That means we will have enough to keep us busy until we become extinct as a species.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

BaalChatzaf, on Apr 3 2009, 05:49 AM, said:

No system has all the answers because we don't have all the questions.

Bob,

That's one hell of a good quote.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Apr 3 2009, 10:32 AM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on Apr 3 2009, 05:49 AM, said:

No system has all the answers because we don't have all the questions.

Bob,

That's one hell of a good quote.

Michael

It was original with me, although someone else might have said it independently, but I don't know that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[SherryTX]

BaalChatzaf, on Apr 3 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Apr 3 2009, 10:32 AM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on Apr 3 2009, 05:49 AM, said:

No system has all the answers because we don't have all the questions.

Bob,

That's one hell of a good quote.

Michael

It was original with me, although someone else might have said it independently, but I don't know that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I agree - that is a good quote, and very important to keep in mind.

I also agree that when someone is excited and new to a philosophy, they may get very aggressive and think they know enough to be right about everything, although they haven't learned enough to really integrate things properly. I have been guilty of this myself.

Regarding growing as an Objectivist, that is why I think some of us come to sites like this to see how others have applied the philosophy. Kind of a self check - it doesn't always mean we will agree with the application at first (if it is correct) and sometimes we may understand when someone has applied it incorrectly, and come to a conclusion that may not be compatible with Objectivism. (One of the most things, that I believe is certainly incorrect, it those that claim to understand the philosophy and states that it doesn't rule out the supernatural. I am always amazed when I meet people like that!)

The number one thing I think - at least through what I have learned these past few years - to help myself grow in understanding the philosophy and whether I am applying it, is to try to be fully aware of my choices and decisions. For example, when I watched a lecture Tara Smith gave on Justice a few years ago, I realized that in some ways I was not applying things correctly with my own kids. I was being a bit harsher than necessary. I was all about the discipline, and wasn't doing enough to recognize when they were doing things right. THAT was a major wake up call that I wasn't really being just, as Objectivism defines justice.

I am not worried about becoming an "expert" or "intellectual scholar" in Objectivism. I still only refer to myself as a student of Objectivist. I am more concerned about growing in Objectivism only as long as the philosophy still proves to be the best one to live. So far, I haven't found a reason for it not to be, so will continue learning more, and integrating, and being conscious, asking myself "am I really practicing the virtues I need to in order to support my true values?".

I still have a far way to go, especially on a personal level.
Growing is a life long thing, whether as an Objectivist or anything else. We are in a constant state of change. I guess the goal is to try to get as close to moral perfection in our personal goals through out our life.


Edited to add: This is one thing I think is missing in the Objectivist movement, as they say. We have a lot of essays and articles on how the government needs to be more reasonable, how people need to take more personal responsibility, etc. However - I haven't found a lot about how people can personally apply the philosophy in their career, home life, love life, raising kids, etc. I know there are some cds on the subject over at ARI (which I haven't ordered yet, as the budget is thin), and everything else seems to be hard to find.

Branden's Six Pillars was excellent, and that is the closet thing I have found. Of course, I am still working on reading, so any suggestions are welcome. I am also still working through Branden's Basic Principles of Objectivism.

What I would love to see is articles by people that give specific examples and details on HOW learning and applying the philosophy has changed their lives in specific ways.
I know we can read a good bit of these on forums, etc. But it would be great if we had a bunch of well written ones in an anthology, or cd, or blog.

This post has been edited by SherryTX: 03 April 2009 - 06:24 PM

[Brant Gaede]

For me and growth it was, one, growing into Objectivism and then, two, growing out of or beyond or in addition to, Objectivism.

When you educate a youngster by not, and then he reads Ayn Rand, it's like a lake breaking its banks and flowing into a gigantic river to the sea of whatever there is to see and be.

--Brant

This post has been edited by Brant Gaede: 04 April 2009 - 12:52 AM

[Xray]

Christopher, on Apr 3 2009, 01:07 AM, said:

Since joining this forum, I have self-noted that many of my posts often appear to take up positions contrary to standard Objectivist assertions. These contrary positions include attempts to recognize the good in religion, to support environmentalism, and to understand what is really meant when people claim to be altruistic.

But keep in mind that objectivism is based on atheism. Rand's atheistic belief is the main pillar her philosophy rests on. Imo one can't be an objectivist without also being an atheist.

This post has been edited by Xray: 18 April 2009 - 02:40 AM

[galtgulch]

Xray, on Apr 18 2009, 03:16 AM, said:

Christopher, on Apr 3 2009, 01:07 AM, said:

Since joining this forum, I have self-noted that many of my posts often appear to take up positions contrary to standard Objectivist assertions. These contrary positions include attempts to recognize the good in religion, to support environmentalism, and to understand what is really meant when people claim to be altruistic.

But keep in mind that objectivism is based on atheism. Rand's atheistic belief is the main pillar her philosophy rests on. Imo one can't be an objectivist without also being an atheist.

I recall always questioning, doubting and wondering when the issue of God came into view as I was growing up. In my case there was no religious teaching at home but my mother enrolled me in an Orthodox Jewish schul when i was nine to prepare me for a Bar Mitzvah at thirteen. It was all very strange watching old men praying in what to me was an incomprehensible foreign tongue which was simply Hebrew of which I hadn't learned a single word at home.

I had already read some of the works of Sir James Jeans (astronomer), Isaac Asimov, George Gaylord Simpson, curator of the American Museum of Natural History and was as solid an atheist as a kid could ever be. I tried to make sense of the Sunday school stories in which "angels" and "God" were pivotal by assuming that for example Abraham dreamed up the story to tell the villagers about the Angel of Death telling him it was enough that he was willing to sacrifice his son and that he didn't have to actually do it.

I will confess it came as a huge relief and realization that at least I belonged to a culture which had given up the practice of human sacrifice of their sons six thousand years ago. So the concept of human sacrifice was fresh in my mind when I encountered a fellow who told me about Objectivism twenty some years later. I didn't have to overcome any obstacles such as indoctrination others experienced if they were Catholic. Not that I was an Objectivist per say but all the elements were there. My metaphysics was that of what I thought was the universal scientific view, a universe that was not a haunted house in which the Law of Identity operated, etc.

It was always important that things make sense and that there was rational evidence for a belief. It is that which I consider to be the BASIS of Objectivism, not just a rejection of wishful thinking and whim worshiping but a commitment to reason and rational evidence. This surely leads to questioning others contention that they believe in "god" what ever they assume that means. If someone asks if you or I believe in "god" simply ask them what they mean by that. They say "you know what I mean" and I say "No I don't please tell me what you mean, what you are referring to."

If they say "Jesus" I might ask "what about him?" if they say, "So you do know who I mean?" I say "The man by that name who lived in Biblical times, Yes I believe such a man lived"

The point is on every issue to search for the rational position and that to me is at the heart of Objectivism and leads to one being comfortable and confident in one's self and with the universe.

But I wouldn't say atheism or lack of a belief in a god is the basis of Objectivism, although Objectivists are atheists on that one question of whether there are supernatural beings who are immaterial and whose wishes can come true, if that is what one means by a god.

The main thing is one's commitment to reason and reality and to making the most of one's life and potential. Whether there is a god or not plays no role because one's life does not revolve around pleasing a mysterious father figure who supposed created us for his or her own purpose which we have to figure out if we are so inclined like so many lost souls who get bogged down wondering why they were "put here."

www.campaignforliberty.com 18 Apr 6AM 146566, 9AM 146580, noon 146624

gulch

This post has been edited by galtgulch: 18 April 2009 - 10:14 AM

[DavidMcK]

The important thing about understanding religion is to understand that whatever is good about it is good by a separate standard. Religion has never been able to generate a systematic ethical system from more basic principles or it wouldn't be a religion; it would be a philosophy. All religious people can say is that something is good because God says it is good, and when it is pointed out that holocausts must be OK since an alleged all-powerful God allowed them to happen, the religious people just ignore things that make them uncomfortable. The mystery of religion is understanding why the most Western religion (Christianity) is also the one most dedicated to 'faith' i.e. arbitrary belief. The west is associated with science and technology, and yet the religion of the west is the one that is most explicitly an appeal to authority and treating facts and arguments as though evidence and arguments were a person that was trying to force you to change your mind.

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, on Apr 18 2009, 01:16 AM, said:

Christopher, on Apr 3 2009, 01:07 AM, said:

Since joining this forum, I have self-noted that many of my posts often appear to take up positions contrary to standard Objectivist assertions. These contrary positions include attempts to recognize the good in religion, to support environmentalism, and to understand what is really meant when people claim to be altruistic.

But keep in mind that objectivism is based on atheism. Rand's atheistic belief is the main pillar her philosophy rests on. Imo one can't be an objectivist without also being an atheist.

Objectivism most emphatically is not based on atheism. It is based on reason.

Objectivism is also not based on the idea that the moon is made of green cheese.

--Brant

[Xray]

Quote

[Brant Gaede] Objectivism is also not based on the idea that the moon is made of green cheese.

Imo diluting the issue by a joke won't get us anywhere here.
I'd prefer if we keep focused and get to the heart of the issue.
Which is why I'd like you to answer my question regarding the belief in god.
You wrote:

Quote

Objectivism most emphatically is not based on atheism. It is based on reason.

And your reason has led you to which conclusion regarding the god question?

This post has been edited by Xray: 18 April 2009 - 04:27 PM

[SherryTX]

Xray, on Apr 18 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

Quote

[Brant Gaede] Objectivism is also not based on the idea that the moon is made of green cheese.

Imo diluting the issue by a joke won't get us anywhere here.
I'd prefer if we keep focused and get to the heart of the issue.
Which is why I'd like you to answer my question regarding the belief in god.
You wrote:

Quote

Objectivism most emphatically is not based on atheism. It is based on reason.

And your reason has led you to which conclusion regarding the god question?

I think if one learns Objectivism, and integrates it, they will be lead to the conclusion that there is no God, based on reason. I think it sometimes easier for some one already an atheist or at least agnostic to integrate it, since giving up belief in God can be very difficult to do.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Rand stated way back at the beginning that Objectivism is founded on a positive, not a negative.

Atheism is a negative. It denies what other people claim on faith.

Reason is a positive. It is identifiable and verifiable by anyone with a healthy mind.

If God someday makes Himself known to us in the same manner that the rest of reality is known to us, then Objectivists will have to acknowledge that He exists. Until then, the standard Objectivist position is that there is no evidence to suppose God exists—evidence meaning the same form of perception, testing and verification that we use for the rest of reality.

I personally have my own position. I would like God to exist. I know that sounds strange in light of the normal Objectivist preaching against the existence of God, but there it is. Still, that's a preference, not a fact. I can't honestly say God exists and be true to my mind. That comes first for my life to have full value to me.

All I know for a fact about macro issues bearing the scope of God is that there is a lot I do not know as a fact.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Boy, I remember why I like to read you so much, MSK.

rde
Yeah, what he said.

[general semanticist]

It seems to me that one would conclude there is no God based on lack of evidence, not reason. It's possible to reason or rationalize pretty well anything, man is very good at rationalizing, but backing that up with evidence is another thing. If the crops fail one could say it's because God was angry with us for some reason, and someone else might say it's because there was not enough rain. Deciding which reason to accept is where sifting through the evidence comes into play. Reasoning and valuing evidence are two different things.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

(sigh)

One day you will learn what people from an Objectivist perspective mean when they use the word "reason." It entails concept formation starting from sensory input. It's different than your meaning, which is closer to "rationalizing."

If you want to apply those conclusions you wrote to your own meaning, I will take you at your word. But you are using the wrong meaning of "reason" when you apply them to what we normally mean around here by reason.

Michael

[general semanticist]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Apr 19 2009, 12:46 AM, said:

GS,

(sigh)

One day you will learn what people from an Objectivist perspective mean when they use the word "reason." It entails concept formation starting from sensory input. It's different than your meaning, which is closer to "rationalizing."

If you want to apply those conclusions you wrote to your own meaning, I will take you at your word. But you are using the wrong meaning of "reason" when you apply them to what we normally mean around here by reason.

Michael

(Sigh) Well objectivist shouldn't take a word with a well established meaning and change it for no reason.

• a rational motive for a belief or action; "the reason that war was declared"; "the grounds for their declaration"
  
• an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon; "the reason a steady state was never reached was that the back pressure built up too slowly"
  
• the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination; "we are told that man is endowed with reason and capable of distinguishing good from evil"
  
• decide by reasoning; draw or come to a conclusion; "We reasoned that it was cheaper to rent than to buy a house"
  
• rationality: the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their emotions"
  
• argue: present reasons and arguments
  
• cause: a justification for something existing or happening; "he had no cause to complain"; "they had good reason to rejoice"
  
• think logically; "The children must learn to reason"
  
• a fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion; "there is reason to believe he is lying"

[Selene]

Not ever with a word like "selfishness" right?

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, on Apr 18 2009, 03:21 PM, said:

Quote

[Brant Gaede] Objectivism is also not based on the idea that the moon is made of green cheese.

Imo diluting the issue by a joke won't get us anywhere here.
I'd prefer if we keep focused and get to the heart of the issue.
Which is why I'd like you to answer my question regarding the belief in god.
You wrote:

Quote

Objectivism most emphatically is not based on atheism. It is based on reason.

And your reason has led you to which conclusion regarding the god question?

It was a "joke" with a point; the point was bigger than the "joke." Your refusal to consider the point was the dilution, not how and what I said.

No evidence for. It's only a religious idea based on faith if not out and out lies.

My humor is a big and deep part of me and I won't be giving it up for anyone. It's keep me alive and going in an insane world ever since I knew it was insane--when I learned about the atom bomb and what the Nazis did to the Jews. I was four or five and 1950 was the future.

--Brant

This post has been edited by Brant Gaede: 19 April 2009 - 12:34 AM