Frank's Niece!

[Brant Gaede]

I would really appreciate anyone who could help me learn about objectivism. I read all I can and just get more and more confused ~Cathy~

Qua Objectivism think that man needs philosophy for he is the thinking, free-willed animal. This philosophy guides him through his thinking and choice making. The morality is rational self-interest; it centers on one's self.

There are four basic principles: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics--or reality, reason, self interest, and individual rights (capitalism, freedom). These are all interlocked, one logically leading to the next. The key and bridge one to the next is individualism. This refers to one man, one brain, one thought--there is no group think. Now, the supremacy of reality and reason is shared with science. The morality of rational self-interest doesn't deny that man is a social animal only states what is basic, which is first he is an individual animal with the need for freedom to thrive, produce and mate and achieve optimal happiness thereby.

When reading about Objectivism merely categorize the material under one of the four principles and see how they integrate one principle to the next.

Objectivism has two basic aspects. (1) Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand which is, say, 85% cultural and 15% intellectual (the percentages can greatly vary and are not important as such) and Objectivism which is 100% intellectual. She presented her philosophy from her view of the ideal man and his needs and the notion of the impotence of evil. While evil is indeed impotent per se, you cannot rend the possibility of evil out of any man the way she did her heroic, fictional characters. ("Man," BTW, is the over-riding concept shared by both sexes.) It is #1 that is difficult to master. The only one to do so I know of was Nathaniel Branden. Leonard Peikoff after 40 (50? 60?) years of study still fell short, falls short. I am referring to the Objectivist (Ayn Rand) catechism. My Objectivism is #2 and the (my) cultural self-automatic, just like Rand but with quite different results. Ayn Rand's mastery of Objectivism was intellectual and a bunch of her opinions (cultural). Mastering her Objectivism means you need the obsessive brilliance of Nathaniel Branden and to share her bed--not possible for a female. Then she'll announce to the world--she can't; she's dead--you are the master (and hers). (This spills over into her views of the sexes, masculinity and femininity and why a woman is unfit to be President of the United States.)

--Brant

Ok Brant...lets see if I got this right.

PHOLOSPHY: school of thought. general studies of reality, existence, mind, and language.

METAPHYSIC: understanding existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect.

EPISTEMOLOGY: knowledge and understanding.

ETHICS: human morality- right vs wrong, good vs evil, virtue vs, vice, justice vs crime.

POLOTICS: organized (acceptable) control over a human community.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

All of these equal to individualism. One individual with one brain, knowing what their existence means, knowing right from wrong, between good and evil, knowledge and understanding, what their own understanding means of government control and what their behaviors deal with cause and effect and their freedom to pursue their life and happiness. Am I getting it...or am I confusing you as much as I am confused LOL! ~Cathy~ BTW, I wonder if she would be more accepting of a woman president now a days....hmmmmm

Not bad, but politics and individual rights are in the same category re Objectivism.

--Brant

throw her in the swimming pool: if she floats she's a witch (burn her); if she sinks she's innocent; God will sort it out regardless (you floated)

Brant,

You were standing on the riverbank with a long stick to fish her out and lead her home safe through the woods.

Little Red Riding Hood!

--Brant

yum, yum!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Cathy,

LOL...

Try this.

Here's another big word phrase to define base level abstractions and axiomatic concepts: ostensive definition.

But it's not too hard. This is when there are no words--not that you have run out of them, instead, you haven't started using words for what you are thinking about.

For a percept like a color, you simply point to something and say, "I mean this."

For a wider abstraction like existence, you swing your arm all around and say, "I mean this."

Believe it or not, that is pure Rand.

Here is an exact quote from "Chapter 5--Definitions" of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology:

Sensations are the primary material of consciousness and, therefore, cannot be communicated by means of the material which is derived from them. The existential causes of sensations can be described and defined in conceptual terms (e.g., the wavelengths of light and the structure of the human eye, which produce the sensations of color), but one cannot communicate what color is like, to a person who is born blind. To define the meaning of the concept "blue," for instance, one must point to some blue objects to signify, in effect: "I mean this." Such an identification of a concept is known as an "ostensive definition."

Ostensive definitions are usually regarded as applicable only to conceptualized sensations. But they are applicable to axioms as well. Since axiomatic concepts are identifications of irreducible primaries, the only way to define one is by means of an ostensive definition e.g., to define "existence," one would have to sweep one's arm around and say: "I mean this."

Yup.

Cut out all the big words and philosophy starts with pointing.

Show and tell.

In caveman days, they probably pointed and grunted or growled or uga-ugad or something instead of saying, "I mean this."



Michael

[Cathy]

Cathy,

LOL...

Try this.

Here's another big word phrase to define base level abstractions and axiomatic concepts: ostensive definition.

But it's not too hard. This is when there are no words--not that you have run out of them, instead, you haven't started using words for what you are thinking about.

For a percept like a color, you simply point to something and say, "I mean this."

For a wider abstraction like existence, you swing your arm all around and say, "I mean this."

Believe it or not, that is pure Rand.

Here is an exact quote from "Chapter 5--Definitions" of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology:

Sensations are the primary material of consciousness and, therefore, cannot be communicated by means of the material which is derived from them. The existential causes of sensations can be described and defined in conceptual terms (e.g., the wavelengths of light and the structure of the human eye, which produce the sensations of color), but one cannot communicate what color is like, to a person who is born blind. To define the meaning of the concept "blue," for instance, one must point to some blue objects to signify, in effect: "I mean this." Such an identification of a concept is known as an "ostensive definition."

Ostensive definitions are usually regarded as applicable only to conceptualized sensations. But they are applicable to axioms as well. Since axiomatic concepts are identifications of irreducible primaries, the only way to define one is by means of an ostensive definition e.g., to define "existence," one would have to sweep one's arm around and say: "I mean this."

Yup.

Cut out all the big words and philosophy starts with pointing.

Show and tell.

In caveman days, they probably pointed and grunted or growled or uga-ugad or something instead of saying, "I mean this."

Michael

Wow! Why did she have to make things so complicated! I think I understand caveman more than "Ayn Rand...hey that kind of rhymes lol! ~Cathy~

[Cathy]

Just got finished watching the movie "The Passion of Ayn Rand". Ayn Rand may have writing good books, she may have had some good thoughts, but all in all she was nothing but a hypocrite. How could she destroy Nathan when she did the same thing he did? Nothing like keeping in control of your feelings and emotions. Says one thing and does another. I'm happy that I only knew kooky Aunt Alice! ~Cathy~

[Brant Gaede]

Just got finished watching the movie "The Passion of Ayn Rand". Ayn Rand may have writing good books, she may have had some good thoughts, but all in all she was nothing but a hypocrite. How could she destroy Nathan when she did the same thing he did? Nothing like keeping in control of your feelings and emotions. Says one thing and does another. I'm happy that I only knew kooky Aunt Alice! ~Cathy~

She didn't destroy Nathan and "hypocrite" is too strong a word. She was a great American hero in over her head in many ways for biting off more than she could chew, but she didn't suffer one common human failing: under-achieving achievement. The cause of under-achieving is within a person and without with the without for most having the more to do with what's within than anything else. She beat the without; she survived communist Russia. It made her a giant. The only real value to us of what kind of criticizable person person she was is to illustrate problems with aspects of her philosophy. I understand your locus focus for your family connection but yours is an almost unique situation. There is no aunt Alice in my life. Yes there was a real problem out of the 1950s and 1960s with Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden high-fiving each other and others seduced into the mix until an unsustainable edifice of an artificial reality manifested then collapsed from the lies built on lies starting with that first one she was mostly responsible for. Frankly, it's hard to greatly condemn an almost 50 yo woman pulling out the stops to get laid by an almost 25 yo man who was pushing all her buttons on what she ultimately wanted as a woman out of life--on the one hand--and doing all she could to protect her public imagine thus protecting her magnum opus, so she must have thought, on its way to completion and publication, from scandal. For all her philosophical radicalness she was in important ways personally quite conventional*, so she played "Let's keep a secret."

--Brant

*Nathaniel Branden's observation

[Cathy]

Just got finished watching the movie "The Passion of Ayn Rand". Ayn Rand may have writing good books, she may have had some good thoughts, but all in all she was nothing but a hypocrite. How could she destroy Nathan when she did the same thing he did? Nothing like keeping in control of your feelings and emotions. Says one thing and does another. I'm happy that I only knew kooky Aunt Alice! ~Cathy~

She didn't destroy Nathan and "hypocrite" is too strong a word. She was a great American hero in over her head in many ways for biting off more than she could chew, but she didn't suffer one common human failing: under-achieving achievement. The cause of under-achieving is within a person and without with the without for most having the more to do with what's within than anything else. She beat the without; she survived communist Russia. It made her a giant. The only real value to us of what kind of criticizable person person she was is to illustrate problems with aspects of her philosophy. I understand your locus focus for your family connection but yours is an almost unique situation. There is no aunt Alice in my life. Yes there was a real problem out of the 1950s and 1960s with Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden high-fiving each other and others seduced into the mix until an unsustainable edifice of an artificial reality manifested then collapsed from the lies built on lies starting with that first one she was mostly responsible for. Frankly, it's hard to greatly condemn an almost 50 yo woman pulling out the stops to get laid by an almost 25 yo man who was pushing all her buttons on what she ultimately wanted as a woman out of life--on the one hand--and doing all she could to protect her public imagine thus protecting her magnum opus, so she must have thought, on its way to completion and publication, from scandal. For all her philosophical radicalness she was in important ways personally quite conventional*, so she played "Let's keep a secret."

--Brant

*Nathaniel Branden's observation

Brant, I understand what you are saying just not most of the words ; ). What got me is she went against all her standards of what she expected from others. She said she would not give power to anyone who could hurt her, but she did. Was she really that self centered to believe he would not out grow her? I thought she was a self proclaimed genius and she should have known the age difference between them was not a "smart" thing to do. I knew Uncle Frank did not except the affair. Your right, she was not an under achiever that's for sure. She was smart enough to be a good manipulator...that's the way I see it. I think I need to read the book...I may see things differently. I could still be angry with her and am looking for the worst about her. If she didn't destroy the Brandon's, she tried to, and that is what I think was wrong. The affair could have came out then...what made her so sure that the Brandon's wouldn't have told the public? She must have thought she had all the power and she did because they didn't tell. It seems to me she played "let's keep a secret" all her life, but in death she had no more power. Sad in a way. ~Cathy~

[Brant Gaede]

Cathy, I should have stated you get no good or real idea about Rand and Branden and what happened back then by watching that movie. The book is incomparably better. Nathaniel was much brainier, Rand too, and much more powerful and dynamic a personality. Peter Fonda playing Frank was much, much closer to the human mark than Eric Stolz playing Nathaniel (Rand never stopped calling him "Nathan," at least while they still had a relationship) was weak silly. Helen Mirren As Ayn was better but Ayn as Ayn would have obliterated Eric as Nathaniel--you wouldn't have even seen him. What was not replicated in the book or the movie was the role of powerful ideas in this human mix. I guess you had to have been there, seen it and felt it.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I did not see the movie but Peter Fonda seems like excellent casting for Frank - just on looks alone.

Who played Barbara?

[caroljane]

You were standing on the riverbank with a long stick to fish her out and lead her home safe through the woods.

Daunce...your a hopeless romantic aren't you we need more people like you in the world ~Cathy~Y

.Dear Cathy! You do me too much credit. \I am not now nor ever have been a romantic, especially as your aunt defined it. And as in popular imagination -

Candles around the bathtub are too dim to read by, and soft jazz playing in the background irritates me beyond endurance.

\I am pretty hopeless at times, though.

[Cathy]

Cathy, I should have stated you get no good or real idea about Rand and Branden and what happened back then by watching that movie. The book is incomparably better. Nathaniel was much brainier, Rand too, and much more powerful and dynamic a personality. Peter Fonda playing Frank was much, much closer to the human mark than Eric Stolz playing Nathaniel (Rand never stopped calling him "Nathan," at least while they still had a relationship) was weak silly. Helen Mirren As Ayn was better but Ayn as Ayn would have obliterated Eric as Nathaniel--you wouldn't have even seen him. What was not replicated in the book or the movie was the role of powerful ideas in this human mix. I guess you had to have been there, seen it and felt it.

--Brant

Brant, I wish I could have been there, and known, and been part of that life and the ideas she had. Maybe that's why I am so upset with her and my father. I should have been able to sort through my own standards and know all views, not just what my father wanted me to know. They must have been something Brant, I can "hear" it in what your writing. Maybe I would have admired her or maybe I would have hated her...but it should have been my choice. Right now, I am learning everything I can about both of them. I believe her views about the government 100% but I do not believe in selfishness. As close to selfishness as I can get would be one hand washes the other...other than that, I do believe we are our brothers keeper. I told my husband one time that I wish I could be like other people and not feel so much...but then that wouldn't be me. ~Cathy~

[Cathy]

I did not see the movie but Peter Fonda seems like excellent casting for Frank - just on looks alone.

Who played Barbara

Julie Delpy played Barbara. I agree, Peter Fonda does look a lot like Uncle Frank, I think its the receding hair line and eyes...and maybe the shape of the face.

[caroljane]

You know Cathy,to gain a knowledge of objectivism is not a task or chore that you have to "do right" and get an outcome that is"correct" - well, I think you do know that. You are here to find answers to the puzzle of your own life, which is a task that every thinking person undertakes, on purpose or involuntarily. "The unexamined life is not worth living" supposedly, but much depends on the examiners -

I hope you are finding as much pleasure as pain in your explorations here.We are all enjoying your company especially us minority socialist sheep!

[Cathy]

You were standing on the riverbank with a long stick to fish her out and lead her home safe through the woods.

Daunce...your a hopeless romantic aren't you we need more people like you in the world ~Cathy~Y

.Dear Cathy! You do me too much credit. \I am not now nor ever have been a romantic, especially as your aunt defined it. And as in popular imagination -

Candles around the bathtub are too dim to read by, and soft jazz playing in the background irritates me beyond endurance.

\I am pretty hopeless at times, though.

Ha ha ha ha lol lol lol...you make me laugh!!!! You are so funny. You make me in a good mood ~Cathy~

[Cathy]

You know Cathy,to gain a knowledge of objectivism is not a task or chore that you have to "do right" and get an outcome that is"correct" - well, I think you do know that. You are here to find answers to the puzzle of your own life, which is a task that every thinking person undertakes, on purpose or involuntarily. "The unexamined life is not worth living" supposedly, but much depends on the examiners -

I hope you are finding as much pleasure as pain in your explorations here.We are all enjoying your company especially us minority socialist sheep!

Daunce, between you and the others, books and movies, I am finding out so much more! All of them stop existing for me since I was thirteen. I didn't think about them having a life before me or after I was thirteen. For me its like digging up the dead, literally. Because of all this I have found not just about my aunt, but a first cousin who is 85 years old, who knows how long I have her, and thank God I wasn't to late. So yes, all and all most of you have been very nice and helpful for me. I really do hope you all know how much I've come to care about you and appreciate all of you! ~Cathy~

[Brant Gaede]

Cathy, I should have stated you get no good or real idea about Rand and Branden and what happened back then by watching that movie. The book is incomparably better. Nathaniel was much brainier, Rand too, and much more powerful and dynamic a personality. Peter Fonda playing Frank was much, much closer to the human mark than Eric Stolz playing Nathaniel (Rand never stopped calling him "Nathan," at least while they still had a relationship) was weak silly. Helen Mirren As Ayn was better but Ayn as Ayn would have obliterated Eric as Nathaniel--you wouldn't have even seen him. What was not replicated in the book or the movie was the role of powerful ideas in this human mix. I guess you had to have been there, seen it and felt it.

--Brant

Brant, I wish I could have been there, and known, and been part of that life and the ideas she had. Maybe that's why I am so upset with her and my father. I should have been able to sort through my own standards and know all views, not just what my father wanted me to know. They must have been something Brant, I can "hear" it in what your writing. Maybe I would have admired her or maybe I would have hated her...but it should have been my choice. Right now, I am learning everything I can about both of them. I believe her views about the government 100% but I do not believe in selfishness. As close to selfishness as I can get would be one hand washes the other...other than that, I do believe we are our brothers keeper. I told my husband one time that I wish I could be like other people and not feel so much...but then that wouldn't be me. ~Cathy~

Selfishness was defined by Rand--so-called dictionary definition--as "concern with one's own interests." After slapping that word into the title of a collection of her essays for polemical or rhetorical reasons she came with this next to nothing jejune meaning. If you take selfishness or rational self-interest per se you end up in problem-land because only the very deepest core of a human being wears these clothes for that's where individualism resides. Growing up, branching out, finding a mate, having a family, maturing into a responsible social being all apropos human nature--earning a living--well, there's nothing selfless about that. Romeo and Juliet as teenagers and then as a couple in their thirties with children: not the same but we can still call 'em selfish.

The problem with altruism is in its being used as moral justification for enslavement, psychological and political. It's the ethics of collectivism. You must sacrifice yourself for the greater good and people must be sacrificed. As I was to find out, however, weakening altruism does not weaken collectivism which tenaciously hangs on, burrows in and takes over. The proper battlefield is individual rights. You will win no political war with morality. Al it can do is toughen you up. Rand thought of herself, primarily, as a moralizer, and she went down with her moralizing ship after blowing off almost everyone who might have kept her afloat. She once said her philosophy was dangerous, that it would destroy anybody who played around with it, who didn't take it hook, line and sinker. The truth was all one needed to do was jump into the Objectivist Ethics, letting all else take care of itself at the feet of the master. The truth, and the true danger--of a cult.

--Brant

[Cathy]

Cathy, I should have stated you get no good or real idea about Rand and Branden and what happened back then by watching that movie. The book is incomparably better. Nathaniel was much brainier, Rand too, and much more powerful and dynamic a personality. Peter Fonda playing Frank was much, much closer to the human mark than Eric Stolz playing Nathaniel (Rand never stopped calling him "Nathan," at least while they still had a relationship) was weak silly. Helen Mirren As Ayn was better but Ayn as Ayn would have obliterated Eric as Nathaniel--you wouldn't have even seen him. What was not replicated in the book or the movie was the role of powerful ideas in this human mix. I guess you had to have been there, seen it and felt it.

--Brant

Brant, I wish I could have been there, and known, and been part of that life and the ideas she had. Maybe that's why I am so upset with her and my father. I should have been able to sort through my own standards and know all views, not just what my father wanted me to know. They must have been something Brant, I can "hear" it in what your writing. Maybe I would have admired her or maybe I would have hated her...but it should have been my choice. Right now, I am learning everything I can about both of them. I believe her views about the government 100% but I do not believe in selfishness. As close to selfishness as I can get would be one hand washes the other...other than that, I do believe we are our brothers keeper. I told my husband one time that I wish I could be like other people and not feel so much...but then that wouldn't be me. ~Cathy~

Selfishness was defined by Rand--so-called dictionary definition--as "concern with one's own interests." After slapping that word into the title of a collection of her essays for polemical or rhetorical reasons she came with this next to nothing jejune meaning. If you take selfishness or rational self-interest per se you end up in problem-land because only the very deepest core of a human being wears these clothes for that's where individualism resides. Growing up, branching out, finding a mate, having a family, maturing into a responsible social being all apropos human nature--earning a living--well, there's nothing selfless about that. Romeo and Juliet as teenagers and then as a couple in their thirties with children: not the same but we can still call 'em selfish.

The problem with altruism is its being used as moral justification for enslavement, psychological and political. It's the ethics of collectivism. You must sacrifice yourself for the greater good and people must be sacrificed.

--Brant

Sacrificing ones self for the greater good has been happening since the beginning of time. What makes her think that selfishness would make the world a better place? What extent did she mean by it? If I seen someone hungry, I would give them food, But not if it meant my own would go hungry...is that what she means? ~Cathy~

[Brant Gaede]

If I seen someone hungry, I would give them food, But not if it meant my own would go hungry...is that what she means? ~Cathy~

Pretty much.

--Brant

[Cathy]

If I seen someone hungry, I would give them food, But not if it meant my own would go hungry...is that what she means? ~Cathy~

Pretty much.

--Brant

Thank you, I think I am catching on ~Cathy~

[Selene]

You know Cathy,to gain a knowledge of objectivism is not a task or chore that you have to "do right" and get an outcome that is"correct" - well, I think you do know that. You are here to find answers to the puzzle of your own life, which is a task that every thinking person undertakes, on purpose or involuntarily. "The unexamined life is not worth living" supposedly, but much depends on the examiners -

I hope you are finding as much pleasure as pain in your explorations here.We are all enjoying your company especially us minority socialist sheep!

Carol:

You are a remarkable human being, It is an honor to know you.

A,,,

[Cathy]

You know Cathy,to gain a knowledge of objectivism is not a task or chore that you have to "do right" and get an outcome that is"correct" - well, I think you do know that. You are here to find answers to the puzzle of your own life, which is a task that every thinking person undertakes, on purpose or involuntarily. "The unexamined life is not worth living" supposedly, but much depends on the examiners -

I hope you are finding as much pleasure as pain in your explorations here.We are all enjoying your company especially us minority socialist sheep!

Carol:

You are a remarkable human being, It is an honor to know you.

A,,,

I agree with you Selene...I liked her right from the start ~Cathy~

[Brant Gaede]

You know Cathy,to gain a knowledge of objectivism is not a task or chore that you have to "do right" and get an outcome that is"correct" - well, I think you do know that. You are here to find answers to the puzzle of your own life, which is a task that every thinking person undertakes, on purpose or involuntarily. "The unexamined life is not worth living" supposedly, but much depends on the examiners -

I hope you are finding as much pleasure as pain in your explorations here.We are all enjoying your company especially us minority socialist sheep!

Carol:

You are a remarkable human being, It is an honor to know you.

A,,,

I agree with you Selene...I liked her right from the start ~Cathy~

As a Martian I have examined thousands of earthlings and I have to agree.

--Brant

next!

[PDS]

You know Cathy,to gain a knowledge of objectivism is not a task or chore that you have to "do right" and get an outcome that is"correct" - well, I think you do know that. You are here to find answers to the puzzle of your own life, which is a task that every thinking person undertakes, on purpose or involuntarily. "The unexamined life is not worth living" supposedly, but much depends on the examiners -

I hope you are finding as much pleasure as pain in your explorations here.We are all enjoying your company especially us minority socialist sheep!

Carol:

You are a remarkable human being, It is an honor to know you.

A,,,

I agree with you Selene...I liked her right from the start ~Cathy~

As a Martian I have examined thousands of earthlings and I have to agree.

--Brant

next!

Couldn't agree more. Except for the Martian part.

[caroljane]

You know Cathy,to gain a knowledge of objectivism is not a task or chore that you have to "do right" and get an outcome that is"correct" - well, I think you do know that. You are here to find answers to the puzzle of your own life, which is a task that every thinking person undertakes, on purpose or involuntarily. "The unexamined life is not worth living" supposedly, but much depends on the examiners -

I hope you are finding as much pleasure as pain in your explorations here.We are all enjoying your company especially us minority socialist sheep!

Carol:

You are a remarkable human being, It is an honor to know you.

A,,,

I agree with you Selene...I liked her right from the start ~Cathy~

As a Martian I have examined thousands of earthlings and I have to agree.

--Brant

next!

Couldn't agree more. Except for the Martian part.

All sentiments are mutual

Carol

Blush, BLUSH

[ginny]

Carol, are you in the Canadian flood area? Pictures look gross.

[caroljane]

Carol, are you in the Canadian flood area? Pictures look gross.

No I am home in Toronto but my son and 2 grandsons are in Calgary! visiting the maternal grands, but I just heard they are fine and were not evacuated as the house is high enough up. I had a frantic short while you can imagine, but they are all fine.