Serious Students vs. Degenerate Objectivists

[Xray]

<...>

When people get in group, the philosophy pieces don't fit like they do on paper. People just don't act like the blueprint says they should. I have the impression that this bothers Phil--on a "that ain't the way it's supposed to be" level--and he wants to make it work. But he doesn't know how to tell people that or convince them. So he does what he can, but then people respond as they do. I think that frustrates him to no end.<...>

Imo what Phil wrote in RB' s blog is at the root of it all:

To admit to the honest, shameful, embarrassing truth, I have a certain kind of what's-the-use depression+cynicism+hopelessness that tells me no one will read it, appreciate it, and I'll end up feeling even worse. When Rand started feeling those things late in life and couldn't write another novel, unlike me she had already accomplished a life's work. In my case on the other hand, I'm basically still a nobody who has accomplished *nothing* of importance intellectually, and I'm having trouble finding motivation. When I sit down to write I feel a huge lack of energy.

Phil, correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression that you were influenced by the pressure some Objectivists seem to feel in terms of having to produce something unique, in order to qualify as a "first-hander" (or even as "prime mover").

Maybe lightening the psychological load you have inflicted on yourself would help you a lot. Easier said than done, I know.

Also, it has a lot to do with whether you have to write for a living, or if your writing is an option.

[Philip Coates]

Xray, I don't really think that's my motivation. I think someone can be a first-hander who is not an originator, not a prime mover. Perfectly valid career goal to be an employee in a corporation and execute others' instructions for example.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Responding to GHS's Series of Questions

I had spoken of:

" People who have

i) dropped away from or

ii) not fully practiced important and key principles of Objectivism that would improve things or

iii) refused to fully study or attend properly to Objectivist principles."

In response, George posted this [Post #215] (Aside: I wish others would reason or argue like this, including sometimes the author himself. It is more likely to lead to a reasoned discussion -- agree or disagree, his rebuttals or questions are reasonable, clearly-stated, and brief enough to be followed):

" Let's take [Phil's] points one by one:

1) People in this category are not "degenerate Objectivists." They are ex-Objectivists.

2).What "key principles" are you referring to? And "improve things" in what way? At least give some hypothetical examples, if you don't want to give any real ones. I really don't know what you are talking about.

3) Again, what "Objectivist principles" are you referring to? You will need to provide more than vague generalities, so please give some examples of the Objectivist principles that some people refuse to study.

When people don't study a subject, it is usually because they don't see any value in it. This means that they disagree with you, not that they are "degenerate" in some way, so let me ask you this: Among people who disagree with Objectivism (and you), how do you distinguish between those who are degenerate and those who are not? Or do you regard everyone who disagrees with you as degenerate in some way? "

,,,,,,,,,

My answers to 1, 2, 3:

<> Re 1) --> The word degenerate means to decline or deteriorate. It presupposes that they are dropping away from some valid standard, from something they ought not to have lost or abandoned. That's true of Objectivism. It's a valid philosophy and a vitally important one. Bottom line: Those who dropped away from it *ought not* to have done so.

So my original use of the adjective was correct here. I intended to reprove them, to say they are doing something harmful or not in their interest on a very important issue. Just as those who have let their bodies degenerate through lack of any exercise, smoking, becoming an addict, etc. from standards of physical health deserve to have it pointed out that they are doing/have done something wrong.

<> Re 2) & 3) --> There are all sorts of key principles of Objectivism that one ought not to slip away from. The Objectivist virtues -- rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride -- are a good starting place. And, very importantly, how those virtues differ from the Christian ones and are tied to your self-interest. The idea of rational egoism as opposed to just doing what you feel like, being a Nietschean, etc. The ability and willingness to make the effort to be objective, to just look at the facts, no matter how unpleasant or how much your rage or fear or depression or hopelessness or loyalty to your peer group pushes you in another direction. Always fighting to know more, to build up your reason in that way and in terms of logical and other thinking skills, not just knowledge. Allowing the key principles of Objectivism - and the role models you admired in Rand's fiction - to continue to inspire you to struggle and to be the person you wanted to be late in life: "To hold an unchanging youth is to reach at the end the vision with which one started." The idea that you don't punch someone in the face because he has angered you or offended you but has not initiated force & that you don't imprison someone because his lifestyle offends your family values or social norms - the key principle that force is only proper in retaliation, in other words. The principle that people's interests are met, society and civilization and the economy advance, by -completely- voluntary exchange to mutual advantage - the principle behind laissez-faire capitalism..... and much more.

(And lest anyone say, "well, Phil, other thinkers have held each of these principles in isolation", the point is they haven't tied them together into a system, or they have based them on faith, or they have said they should be pursued for reasons of altruism, etc.)

<> "When people don't study a subject, it is usually because they don't see any value in it. This means that they disagree with you, not that they are "degenerate" in some way" --- I answer this in 1) above.

<> "Among people who disagree with Objectivism (and you), how do you distinguish between those who are degenerate and those who are not?" --- This is a very good question: My answer is that those one constantly encounters who say "Oh well, I was a Rand fan when I was young and immature, but I learned the world doesn't work that way" and then go on to give something they learned in college that seems to contradict it are often simply "brainwashed" or mistaken and are not able to see through their professors' lies and distortions and misrepresentations.

They are (in many cases) not denying something they know to be true or which would require too much effort. So they are not 'degenerating' from something. They never accepted or understood the something in the first place.

They don't know any better, to put it in a five word sentence.

[anthony]

Fine, Philip.

But you could have said this earlier.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

My answers to 1, 2, 3:

<> Re 1) --> The word degenerate means to decline or deteriorate. It presupposes that they are dropping away from some valid standard, from something they ought not to have lost or abandoned. That's true of Objectivism. It's a valid philosophy and a vitally important one. Bottom line: Those who dropped away from it *ought not* to have done so.

Every orthodoxy has its heretics. That's all you are really talking about here. Now all you need do is prove that O'ism is 100 percent correct.

So my original use of the adjective was correct here. I intended to reprove them, to say they are doing something harmful or not in their interest on a very important issue. Just as those who have let their bodies degenerate through lack of any exercise, smoking, becoming an addict, etc. from standards of physical health deserve to have it pointed out that they are doing/have done something wrong.

Deserves? Since when are the lives of other people any of your business, so long as they do not violate your rights or harm you? The last time I saw you, you didn't appear to be a model physical specimen. Should I have advised you to get more exercise or eat better? Did you "deserve" to be told you were doing something wrong?

Rand was a tobacco and Benzedrine addict for many years. Did these habits make her unproductive? Did they rob her of other virtues? Did Rand "deserve" to have you point out to her that she was doing something wrong?

I will comment on your other points in separate posts.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

<> Re 1) --> The word degenerate means to decline or deteriorate. It presupposes that they are dropping away from some valid standard, from something they ought not to have lost or abandoned. That's true of Objectivism. It's a valid philosophy and a vitally important one. Bottom line: Those who dropped away from it *ought not* to have done so.

So my original use of the adjective was correct here. I intended to reprove them, to say they are doing something harmful or not in their interest on a very important issue. Just as those who have let their bodies degenerate through lack of any exercise, smoking, becoming an addict, etc. from standards of physical health deserve to have it pointed out that they are doing/have done something wrong.

<> Re 2) & 3) --> There are all sorts of key principles of Objectivism that one ought not to slip away from. The Objectivist virtues -- rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride -- are a good starting place.

Phil, would you mind addressing an example of people "slipping away" from Objectivist virtues? I think that it is abundantly clear that on the Flame War Rant thread, I was embracing and practicing the Objectivist virtues of rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness and pride, where Michael Newberry and you were letting them "slip away." Looking back on that thread now, do you agree?

<> "Among people who disagree with Objectivism (and you), how do you distinguish between those who are degenerate and those who are not?" --- This is a very good question: My answer is that those one constantly encounters who say "Oh well, I was a Rand fan when I was young and immature, but I learned the world doesn't work that way" and then go on to give something they learned in college that seems to contradict it are often simply "brainwashed" or mistaken and are not able to see through their professors' lies and distortions and misrepresentations.

That hardly ever happens. Most of the people that I've seen who criticize Objectivism aren't doing so because they've bought into college professors' distortions and misrepresentations, but because they recognize that Objectivism doesn't have all of the answers that it claims to have, and that it doesn't offer any arguments or proof for some of its assertions.

J

[anthony]

I have a quite gentle view of Phil, influenced by my years with theatre types.

They are quite special.

The house lights dim - music fades, and a follow spot picks out this presence right of centre stage.

In mellifluous tones our man makes an introduction, throws down a gauntlet - and exits stage right.

In the darkened house, the audience begins muttering, eventually hissing, and a rotten cabbage is thrown.

Suddenly, lights up, and he emerges once more - he berates individuals in the audience, adds a few lines of monlogue - and away again.

Phil, you've got it all - suspense, timing, tension, stage presence, and even a reasonable script.

Only half-joking, but you have missed your calling: You are a dramatist at heart.

Tony

(To y'all - I said dramatist, not drama queen!)

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Subject: Responding to GHS's Series of Questions

I had spoken of:

" People who have

i) dropped away from or

ii) not fully practiced important and key principles of Objectivism that would improve things or

iii) refused to fully study or attend properly to Objectivist principles."

In response, George posted this [Post #215] (Aside: I wish others would reason or argue like this, including sometimes the author himself. It is more likely to lead to a reasoned discussion -- agree or disagree, his rebuttals or questions are reasonable, clearly-stated, and brief enough to be followed):

" Let's take [Phil's] points one by one:

1) People in this category are not "degenerate Objectivists." They are ex-Objectivists.

2).What "key principles" are you referring to? And "improve things" in what way? At least give some hypothetical examples, if you don't want to give any real ones. I really don't know what you are talking about.

3) Again, what "Objectivist principles" are you referring to? You will need to provide more than vague generalities, so please give some examples of the Objectivist principles that some people refuse to study.

When people don't study a subject, it is usually because they don't see any value in it. This means that they disagree with you, not that they are "degenerate" in some way, so let me ask you this: Among people who disagree with Objectivism (and you), how do you distinguish between those who are degenerate and those who are not? Or do you regard everyone who disagrees with you as degenerate in some way? "

,,,,,,,,,

My answers to 1, 2, 3:

<> Re 1) --> The word degenerate means to decline or deteriorate. It presupposes that they are dropping away from some valid standard, from something they ought not to have lost or abandoned. That's true of Objectivism. It's a valid philosophy and a vitally important one. Bottom line: Those who dropped away from it *ought not* to have done so.

So my original use of the adjective was correct here. I intended to reprove them, to say they are doing something harmful or not in their interest on a very important issue. Just as those who have let their bodies degenerate through lack of any exercise, smoking, becoming an addict, etc. from standards of physical health deserve to have it pointed out that they are doing/have done something wrong.

<> Re 2) & 3) --> There are all sorts of key principles of Objectivism that one ought not to slip away from. The Objectivist virtues -- rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride -- are a good starting place. And, very importantly, how those virtues differ from the Christian ones and are tied to your self-interest. The idea of rational egoism as opposed to just doing what you feel like, being a Nietschean, etc. The ability and willingness to make the effort to be objective, to just look at the facts, no matter how unpleasant or how much your rage or fear or depression or hopelessness or loyalty to your peer group pushes you in another direction. Always fighting to know more, to build up your reason in that way and in terms of logical and other thinking skills, not just knowledge. Allowing the key principles of Objectivism - and the role models you admired in Rand's fiction - to continue to inspire you to struggle and to be the person you wanted to be late in life: "To hold an unchanging youth is to reach at the end the vision with which one started." The idea that you don't punch someone in the face because he has angered you or offended you but has not initiated force & that you don't imprison someone because his lifestyle offends your family values or social norms - the key principle that force is only proper in retaliation, in other words. The principle that people's interests are met, society and civilization and the economy advance, by -completely- voluntary exchange to mutual advantage - the principle behind laissez-faire capitalism..... and much more.

(And lest anyone say, "well, Phil, other thinkers have held each of these principles in isolation", the point is they haven't tied them together into a system, or they have based them on faith, or they have said they should be pursued for reasons of altruism, etc.)

<> "When people don't study a subject, it is usually because they don't see any value in it. This means that they disagree with you, not that they are "degenerate" in some way" --- I answer this in 1) above.

<> "Among people who disagree with Objectivism (and you), how do you distinguish between those who are degenerate and those who are not?" --- This is a very good question: My answer is that those one constantly encounters who say "Oh well, I was a Rand fan when I was young and immature, but I learned the world doesn't work that way" and then go on to give something they learned in college that seems to contradict it are often simply "brainwashed" or mistaken and are not able to see through their professors' lies and distortions and misrepresentations.

They are (in many cases) not denying something they know to be true or which would require too much effort. So they are not 'degenerating' from something. They never accepted or understood the something in the first place.

They don't know any better, to put it in a five word sentence.

Phil, there is something you are reaching for here and it is somewhat mixed in with the Open/Closed debate in Objectivism. Richard Feynman in the second chapter of his book The Character of Physical Law describes 2 different kinds of approaches to mathematics as they are applied in physics. One is the Greek approach where you reason from a set of axioms to theorems etc. The Babylonian approach was to start with a bunch of theorems and connections without the benefit of underlying axioms.

There are parts of Objectivism that are very Greek and there are parts of Objectivism that are Babylonian in the sense described above. Because many of the disparate parts of Objectivism are tied together in an axiomatic way, many people feel it should all be tied together that way. So when they find that it isn't, disllusionment sets in. I don't think the answer to this is to do lots and lots of study of Objectivism down to all of the various minutiae. I think it is much more profitable to compare Objectivism to systems of knowledge in other domains and test the rigor of the argument based on that standard.

Also, I think that you will find with the birth of complexity economics, a very strong pull of the liberty movement in the Hayekian direction. I don't think this is something to be lamented, but then I'm not an activist in the purist sense. I expect that Rand will convince different people on different issues and a big part of respecting the virtue of independence is coming to a level of sanguinity about that.

Jim

[Selene]

I expect that Rand will convince different people on different issues and a big part of respecting the virtue of independence is coming to a level of sanguinity about that.

Jim

Nice use of the word James:

"The similarity in form between sanguine, "cheerfully optimistic," and sanguinary, "bloodthirsty," may prompt one to wonder how they have come to have such different meanings. The explanation lies in medieval physiology with its notion of the four humors or bodily fluids (blood, bile, phlegm, and black bile).

The relative proportions of these fluids was thought to determine a person's temperament. If blood was the predominant humor, one had a ruddy face and a disposition marked by courage, hope, and a readiness to fall in love. Such a temperament was called sanguine, the Middle English ancestor of our word sanguine.

The source of the Middle English word was Old French sanguin, itself from Latin sanguineus. Both the Old French and Latin words meant "bloody," "blood-colored," Old French sanguin having the sense "sanguine in temperament" as well. Latin sanguineus was in turn derived from sanguis, "blood," just as English sanguinary is.

The English adjective sanguine, first recorded in Middle English before 1350, continues to refer to the cheerfulness and optimism that accompanied a sanguine temperament but no longer has any direct reference to medieval physiology."

[Philip Coates]

> I don't think the answer to this is to do lots and lots of study of Objectivism down to all of the various minutiae.

Jim, I don't either. Part study; part application and acting on the key principles.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A story...

Here comes Joan again. Everybody knows Joan. She's the grumpy old lady who goes into a restaurant, orders a plate of food, then starts talking loudly about how bad the chef and kitchen staff are.

Joan has been doing this for years. It's a trademark, a pattern, a habit she has honed to a skill and practiced frequently.

She had a few favorite restaurants, but over time, she was told that she and her dining were neither wanted nor valued by the respective chefs. But there was one she still liked to go to, the Oyster Living Restaurant.

For years, she went to this place. Her habit was to order her food, then sound off to whoever was listening about the shortcomings of the chef, the kitchen staff, the patrons for putting up with it, and even about how bad the restaurant was. In her view, it was definitely not suited to preparing and serving oysters and by God she wanted people to know about it.

The customers, who loved Oyster Living oyster meals (especially the unconventional ones), got irritated after a while. They started sounding off right back at her. It got to the point where some claimed that she had no idea what an oyster was supposed to taste like and didn't know an oyster from a hole in the ground. When she showed up, they started banging on their plates with their spoons just so they wouldn't have to listen to her.

So she took some time off.

Then one day she showed up again. The regular customers, deep into their dining experience and thoroughly enjoying themselves, looked on with a suspicious eye. She ordered. When her food came, just like clockwork, she sounded off.

She said in a loud voice, "You know, some people learn what oysters taste like in a half-assed manner, then forget over time. They end up eating clam chowder made with MSG and corn-starch and think it's oyster soup."

One of the regulars responded, "There she goes again!" And everyone started pounding on their plates with their spoons.

"Foul!" cried Joan. "Woe is me, such foulness! I was speaking about oyster eaters in general, not about Oyster Living patrons."

Poor Joan couldn't figure out, for the life of her, how those patrons could make such a mistake.

I was going to put that in explanation form, but I think the little story speaks for itself.

Patterns exist.

Those who create patterns with their acts--especially patterns people don't like--should not be surprised when people expect them to stay true to form. So they don't even listen when the particular person shows up. They presume the longstanding pattern will repeat and they tune out.

But I want to get to some substance in Phil's opening post. There is a mixture of some true points with some real warning bells for me. The general tenor reminds me of the person who says if you don't keep your New Year's Resolutions, you didn't mean to keep them in the first place--that you either hold firm or you are a hypocrite.

False dichotomies always leave me feeling antsy, especially when people use them to condemn others.

Let's start with my agreement. Here's what I understand Phil to say, but only the parts I agree with:

1. You have to fully understand something in order to fully understand it. Tautology, maybe, but it's a good one. His notion is that 80% understanding (as evidenced by 80% score on a test) is not indicative of full understanding.

2. Full understanding takes a lot of work. For some it means taking a lot of notes. At least, it takes a lot of effort and time and grunt work.

3. Over time, slackers tend to lose what little understanding they did have.

4. Slacking off is a normal human tendency.

I'm fine with all that.

But now for the other side.

I don't like the way he sneaks presumptions into his argument. In order to agree with the part you agree with, you almost have to accept a presumption you don't. This is a cult tactic.

I'm not claiming that Phil is into cults. But I do think he does not recognize the warning signs and sometimes swallows the process whole without being aware of it.

Here's an example of sneaking in a presumption.

I'd define a "degenerate Objectivist" not as someone who is morally degenerate but as someone who has over the years or decades slipped away or distanced himself from the true aspects of this philosophy or from making the effort to continually rigorously apply it.

Phil's presumption is that such a person understood and accepted "the true aspects" of the philosophy--as he understands it--in the first place and/or tried to live by it. From the context, he holds this to be widespread.

In other words, a person became what in Christianity is called a backslider. Phis calls this "a degenerate Objectivist."

The rock on which this presumption sits is that there is only one true way in Objectivism in the first place. According to this view, you either take Objectivism as a prescription for proper living in all aspects of your life, or you are not on the one true path at all.

I admit that there is a case to be made for this (as the fundies do with the closed system argument), but the danger here is the implied separation of human thought into Objectivism (the good) and Everything Else (the bad).

And there is another presumption that even this sits on--that once you come into contact with Objectivism, you can only understand it as something you have to adhere to--or you reject it because you are evil (or immoral). As for those who claim they understand it but do not swallow it whole, well they simply did not understand it in the first place.

That's dangerous.

It gives me the heeby-jeebies.

That kind of thinking and presuming about others leads to a very dark place. Ironically, it ultimately negates free will and sneaks in original sin in a variation (i.e., our minds are imperfect at birth and our only true choice in life is to conform our minds and souls to the one true way of Objectivism or be forever lost in the limbo and/or hell of irrationality--we are innately sinful unless we choose the one true philosophy, and there can be no choice about that.)

People know what I think about that.

Now here's a point that seems obvious enough, but it gave me another bad feeling.

... the reason I always get the highest scores in our math class and I'm number one in the state math contests is not because I'm smarter than you. And it's not because I was born with more of a natural aptitude for math. I do better because I work five times harder than you.

I'm OK with the idea that hard workers do better than lazy people. That's the obvious truth part everyone agrees with.

But don't forget that I have had years of sitting in AA and NA meetings.

I have heard, over and over, people say that their lives were screwed up because they "did not work the program" enough. And some of those very people became profoundly unhappy in ways they never imagined as they slowly wrapped their wills around a step or other in the Twelve Steps or a tradition or other in the Twelve Traditions that was totally contrary to their nature.

(For example, steps 4 and 5, taking a moral inventory of themselves and sharing it with another person. More than once, I have seen a person share a hell of a lot more about some of his darkest moral issues than he should, like say being sexually abused by his father as a child, and then become deathly afraid of the person he shared it with, even as he coexisted on the surface as friendly.)

I consider myself a success of both AA and NA. I don't drink and I don't use drugs. I haven't for years. Did I do all the steps and traditions in the prescribed depth?

Nope.

I stopped drinking and using drugs. I also stopped "working the program" and going to meetings after I got the results I was after and they settled in.

Now, does this mean that someone who constantly works the program is better and more competent at quitting drugs and alcohol than I am?

Heh.

I see the same thinking here. If we are talking about an advanced math test, OK. You work harder, so you get better at it than slackers.

But how about the person who doesn't need advanced math at all for his own purposes? He just needs to do the basics, which he knows just fine.

Is this person a math failure?

I don't think so.

Ditto for Objectivism.

If all a professional football player needs is to learn to think for himself and hold reason as his ultimate standard of knowledge, what else does he need from Objectivism to get that ball across the goal line? Will constant study and adherence to advanced stuff like the Objectivist theory of concept formation make him happier? Hell no. Being a better football player will.

Nowadays, when I go on Oist websites or boards, I find person after person who expresses disagreement on point Y when Oism never advocated Y or who says (Ronlike) "Nah, I didn't need to do that much work. I don't need all those courses. It was all obvious after I read Atlas and (one of) the non-fiction collections of essays."

I own one of these boards, I have posted on several others, and I have never read anyone claim this. But I have read people take Rand's fundamental principles as given by her "standing on one foot" description and claim they were able to get that level of understanding easily from Atlas Shrugged.

I certainly have not read--nor heard of--anyone who denied that there are some advanced topics within Objectivism. Nor have I heard of anyone who claims they understand the advanced stuff just by superficial reading.

The people I have read who discuss Objectivism being obvious are only talking about the basic principles. Never about the advanced parts.

And frankly, if someone reads Atlas Shrugged and doesn't understand that the deal is objective reality, reason, self-interest and capitalism, then this person simply didn't read the book.

So I object to the insinuation that you cannot understand the true meaning of Objectivism without becoming a scholar. Or that if you do not become a scholar, you will get objective reality, reason, self-interest and capitalism all wrong over time (i.e., drift away from it).

The essentials are there for everyone to see. People say they are obvious because, hell, they actually are obvious.

It's hard to do a scientific study, but there seems to be a correlation between those who have slipped away from Oism -- either in terms of a) living their lives according to it -or- b) considering themselves Oists in philosophical fundamentals and those who didn't take all those courses, read and take notes on every single book, or put that much effort into getting 100% mastery of every issue, application, or wrinkle.

Woah theah...

This is a really sneaky cult thing. (Once again, I don't claim Phil is doing this on purpose.)

Let's look at that first part: "It's hard to do a scientific study." How does Phil know it's hard to do one on this issue? Has he tried? Has he seen someone else try? What would his control group look like? His controlled environment? The test parameters? Has he truly drawn up some thoughts about this on the level of actual testing?

Heh.

Do I really need to answer?

The problem is using the word "scientific" when talking about a fuzzy speculation. This technique is used to grant some borrowed credibility to an idea a person dreamed up.

Look at any Law of Attraction pitch. You know, the idea that all you have to do is think about something in the correct manner and the universe will conspire to give it to you. A new car. Wealth. Whatever you wish. The Secret was a popular movie pitching LOA. A great deal of this material claims to be based on "scientific principles."

But there is nothing scientific about any of it. You believe it or you don't. If you actually apply science using trial and error under controlled conditions with control groups, you end up not believing it.

And if you can't claim scientific principles, just saying the word "science" gets you some framing credibility mileage as a person who thinks scientifically, so people implicitly imagine you use the same rigor in your thoughts and speculations.

Credibility by association, as it were.

As to the speculation itself, that there "seems to be a correlation" between the slackers and degenerate Objectivists (as defined by Phil), this is a gross oversimplification. And it makes use of another cult-thing.

The idea is to provide a false alternative that sounds somewhat complete so you NEVER entertain the idea that someone might fully understand an idea by Rand, might fully get it, but disagree with it because that person found a deeper truth that was more correct.

In the proposition Phil gave, his "hard to do" "scientific" "correlation" was only between people who didn't fully get it in the first place and people who did. Those who didn't get it drifted away. Those who did get it stayed on. And that's the entire shebang.

Well, it isn't.

Some people get it and don't swallow it whole. And they find other stuff to complement it with.

The natural human tendency is to slack off after doing the first 6 or 7 problems at the end of the math chapter.

And then either to be satisfied with 80% rather than 100% - or to make ... and sometimes believe ... some sort of excuse or rationalization or have some sort of defense mechanism about it.

In other words, if you are satisfied with 80%, you have to resort to a rationalization to justify this to yourself.

The implication here is that "full understanding" of Objectivism (as defined by Phil) is and should be the top value for all human values for all individuals.

Doctrine over the person's values.

I won't even address this premise. Let's just say that I disagree with it.

Anyway, I've rambled enough.

I hope some of the traps I've pointed to are clear for some readers. And, for a final time, I'm not roasting Phil here.

My value is to explore clear thinking, not personality issues or bashing.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

A story...

Wow, helluva job MSK! That was the Galt's speech of Phil takedowns!

[caroljane]

Whaat's going on around here? I turn my back for a few minutes and everybody is up to their old tricks again - worse than ever! Meaner, profaner, profounder, psychologozinger, impassioneder, funnier - it's vintage OL!

It's great to be back.

Degenerately,

Carol

PS Brant Gaede, I saw that! Stop hogging those grapes - share with others!

[Roger Bissell]

Good post, Michael.

Two tidbits here:

1. In commenting several months ago on the Free Minds 2011 seminar in Anaheim, CA, I wrote:

[....]I have observed that the more people focus on the ~movement~ rather than ~their own~ well-being and self-interest, the more people tend to become mired in judgmentalness and unproductivity.[....]

REB

2. A few years ago, I was standing in a checkout line at one of the WalMart stores in Orange, California, and I was treated to the following (approximately recollected) rant by the customer just in front of me: [to the checker] "I want you to know that I HATE your store! I like Target a LOT better. I only came here, because I couldn't find what I wanted at Target." Perhaps some of you here understand why I wanted to strangle this woman...

REB

[Brant Gaede]

Whaat's going on around here? I turn my back for a few minutes and everybody is up to their old tricks again - worse than ever! Meaner, profaner, profounder, psychologozinger, impassioneder, funnier - it's vintage OL!

It's great to be back.

Degenerately,

Carol

PS Brant Gaede, I saw that! Stop hogging those grapes - share with others!

I'm sharing them with the beautiful naked women who keep putting them into my mouth.

--Brant

I should have done this years ago!--paganism rocks!

[Selene]

Whaat's going on around here? I turn my back for a few minutes and everybody is up to their old tricks again - worse than ever! Meaner, profaner, profounder, psychologozinger, impassioneder, funnier - it's vintage OL!

It's great to be back.

Degenerately,

Carol

PS Brant Gaede, I saw that! Stop hogging those grapes - share with others!

Hey, babes...come here often...what's your sign?

Welcome back!

Adam

[9thdoctor]

It's great to be back.

You're reappearance announcements are getting to be as common as Phil's departure announcements. But welcome of course. Best of the Week?

[Brant Gaede]

Nothing like typing five paragraphs which get wiped out for no reason except the instability of this platform.

--Brant

rewrite later

[Jonathan]

Hey, babes...come here often...what's your sign?

Damn, that's almost as bad as saying "You're the same height as my wife."

J

[Brant Gaede]

(rewrite--or why shorter is better)

Objectivism before the break of 1968 was a cult. It was a broadening out and extension of the 1950s-60s "Collective." As far as Rand was concerned her philosophy was in Atlas Shrugged. That means NBI really wasn't an educational effort, although, ironically, it provided an education in spades.

It seems that after the break some hardy souls started clinging to the philosophy itself, as opposed to the major personalities involved, Rand and Branden doing other things. There was a long petering out until 1982 with Rand's death then 1986 when Peikoff started acting really funny.

--Brant

we're on our own--we always were

[anthony]

Whaat's going on around here? I turn my back for a few minutes and everybody is up to their old tricks again - worse than ever! Meaner, profaner, profounder, psychologozinger, impassioneder, funnier - it's vintage OL! It's great to be back. Degenerately, Carol

Nothing new, Carol. Everyone getting his few seconds - hours sometimes - in the limelight...

Recognition and acknowledgment: even O'ist types need some. (In the most first-handed way, natch!)

That'll learn ya to turn your back on the mice, pussycat.

Tony

[Philip Coates]

> I consider myself a success of both AA and NA. I don't drink and I don't use drugs. I haven't for years. Did I do all the steps and traditions in the prescribed depth? Nope....I stopped drinking and using drugs. I also stopped "working the program" and going to meetings after I got the results I was after and they settled in. Now, does this mean that someone who constantly works the program is better and more competent at quitting drugs and alcohol than I am? [MSK]

Michael, you make an excellent point. Once you've mastered the basics (unless you are a scholar or like to systematize), that can be all you need to do for any doctrine or set of practices that is true and important to your life.

What I was criticizing is not people who got it and applied it in essential terms but people (to use your example) who say "Hey, I don't have a problem. I don't need any of this stuff at all. I'm perfectly happy taking drugs or drinking excessively and, since I disagree about step 7, I don't need to master any goddamn series of steps or 'preaching' to me about it."

> If we are talking about an advanced math test, OK. You work harder, so you get better at it than slackers. But how about the person who doesn't need advanced math at all for his own purposes? He just needs to do the basics, which he knows just fine.

Same point. I agree.

> If all a professional football player needs is to learn to think for himself and hold reason as his ultimate standard of knowledge, what else does he need from Objectivism to get that ball across the goal line? Will constant study and adherence to advanced stuff like the Objectivist theory of concept formation make him happier? Hell no. Being a better football player will.

I agree.

> The people I have read who discuss Objectivism being obvious are only talking about the basic principles. Never about the advanced parts.

I'd have to disagree with you here:

For many people, even the basic idea of not going on whatever your emotions tell you, of not being altruistic but fighting for your own life and that your own happiness is the standard, of believing that government doesn't need to ride herd on the economy --- are far from obvious, they are counter to what they have been taught all their lives.

Or -- often most difficult of all -- integrating the key principles of Objectivism into their own lives, not just saying "I agree" but "I'm doing if fully and successfully" is the hardest - and often the least fully achieved - part of all.

[George H. Smith]

<> Re 2) & 3) --> There are all sorts of key principles of Objectivism that one ought not to slip away from. The Objectivist virtues -- rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride -- are a good starting place. And, very importantly, how those virtues differ from the Christian ones and are tied to your self-interest. The idea of rational egoism as opposed to just doing what you feel like, being a Nietschean, etc. The ability and willingness to make the effort to be objective, to just look at the facts, no matter how unpleasant or how much your rage or fear or depression or hopelessness or loyalty to your peer group pushes you in another direction. Always fighting to know more, to build up your reason in that way and in terms of logical and other thinking skills, not just knowledge....

Most of these are standard virtues, especially as found in Aristotelian and Stoic philosophy

(And lest anyone say, "well, Phil, other thinkers have held each of these principles in isolation", the point is they haven't tied them together into a system, or they have based them on faith, or they have said they should be pursued for reasons of altruism, etc.)

This is bunk, one based on an ignorance of the history of philosophy. What happened to the virtue of objectivity?

Ghs

[Jonathan]

It seems that after the break some hardy souls started clinging to the philosophy itself, as opposed to the major personalities involved, Rand and Branden doing other things. There was a long petering out until 1982 with Rand's death then 1986 when Peikoff started acting really funny.

I think that Peikoff wanted to extend the clinging to personalities, but, being quite a creepy critter, had to start relying heavily on authoritarianism and ownership of The Estate, which didn't accomplish anything other than making him an even creepier critter.

In addition to wanting time in the "limelight" (as Tony says in 246), I think the "focus on the movement" (as Roger says in 239) is not a focus at all, but just one of many distractions that people use to try to prevent others from focusing on substance and Objectivism's errors. Peikoff can't handle dissent or intelligent criticism, so he creates distractions. Pigero became quite popular back in the early 2000s doing the same thing, but then faded away when everyone realized what he was. Comrade Sonia sometimes uses the same tactics. And here at OL, Phil is the person who spends the most time and effort trying to get people to unfocus and avoid substance.

J

[Jonathan]

What I was criticizing is not people who got it and applied it in essential terms but people (to use your example) who say "Hey, I don't have a problem..."

Heh.

J