Being a Teenage Objectivist


achaya

Recommended Posts

Chris,

Worthless to you (who can't remember).

Not to others.

I don't swallow the whole enchilada with Tony Robbins (I'm not exactly a Robbins groupie), but quite a few parts from selected works have been very valuable to me (specifically Awaken the Giant Within, Mastering Influence, and a few isolated lectures). He packages solid principles he gets from others in a commercial manner. I see nothing wrong with it.

In fact, I believe he is a very good introduction to NLP since he gives you immediate proof of how things work by giving you something to do yourself to observe the immediate results.

I have since gone on to other NLP people for specific areas of my own interests: Frank Kern for Internet marketing, Robert Dilts in a fascinating lecture series called Sleight of Mouth, which transformed my thinking about normative abstractions, Jamie Smart for metaphors and influence language patterns, a really sneaky thing on anchoring by a couple, Tom Vizzini and Kimberly McFarland, a video course I just started by Kennrick Cleveland on persuasion--and this guy makes me feel good because he is more overweight than I am, and some other stuff. I tried to get into Richard Bandler, but I don't resonate with him at all. I just now got my hands on some early stuff by Grinder and some other stuff on writing by Michael Hall, but I haven't had time to go into it yet. I also got some really early stuff by Milton Erickson on hypnosis.

That should be enough name-dropping for now.

:)

I quipped, but I really have been--and am--going through all that. And there are several I left out.

I have noticed that it's a fad to bash Tony Robbins among the NLP crowd. I haven't read or heard anything that convinces me to drop the enormous value I have gotten from Robbins, though, nor any reason I find valid that convinces me that the value I (and others) gets is not really valuable. His message is to become the best you can and help others along the way. He gives you techniques to help you, many of which work. And he likes to "rock the house" (as he says) at his presentations, which he does really well. I can't find anything at all wrong with any of that.

I think NLP people don't like the fact that he sold NLP stuff on infomercials, didn't call it NLP and didn't give due credit to the people he learned it from. He also mixes stuff in from Maslow and other behavior scientists, some self-help gurus like Napoleon Hill, Jim Rohn, etc., and a mish-mash of other sundry people. The NLP crowd comes off to me as thinking he somehow cheapens it all.

But none of that bothers me. I like what I have learned from Robbins. And I like it a lot.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Worthless to you (who can't remember).

The book was Awaken the Giant Within.

Ultimately that's what probably turned me off of him. He seems too much like a car salesman.

He also promotes those firewalks, which are a big scam.

If Robbins guided you into the world of NLP, I am certainly happy for you. There is a lot of good stuff there.

I own some taped talks by Kenrick Cleveland. I have several other books as well. Above all, thanks to the world of NLP, I found the brilliant work of Ross Jeffries.

I have quite a few of the Bandler-Grinder classics as documents.

Edited by Chris Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I have thought a lot more about what I didn't like about Robbins. Ultimately, as I read the book, I had the feeling: "This guy doesn't understand me." Maybe that's not the right reason. Maybe I should go back and read his book again. However, that is the problem with his book. It's not the only such book either.

I also think that this is what attracts a lot of people to Rand. It was that way for me: "Ayn Rand understands me."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hey!

I've considered myself an objectivist for a few years now, and I'm currently 20 years old. I can't really say I've had any major obstacles.

There's always going to be the moochers and free loaders, calling you a selfish bastard, maybe even anti-social...but that's going to happen at every age. lol

Oooh and with any problems you do have, it's so worth it anyway. The way I see it, whose running into the bigger problems, you? or the others?

Just wanted to toss my 2 cents in...

JeanBean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I have not been on in a few days and this thread caught my eye so I thought to give some input.

I will begin by saying I was an objectivist before I discovered Mrs. Rand, depending on how you count it I have been an objectivist since I was 15, or rather I began down the path of objectivism at 15. As some background I was a passivist as a kid, my brother younger brother had a sever case of ADHD and was like a stick of dynamite and you never knew if he was lit. He was only 18 months younger than I but has always been much stronger (had a 6 pack at age 4), and he would beat me pretty badly when we were younger. At that time in my life I was the ideal altruist, I was nearly completely selfless (Prometheus forgive me). Even at a very young age I understood much more than most people think kids understand. For an example as to how selfless I was we always had HUGE Christmas's, lots and lots of presents, it was wrong to be selfish and to want things so no matter how much I wanted something I would not ask for it. My mom had to force me to give her a christmas list and I wouldn't put more than 10 things on it and always inexpensive things. I got much more than those things but I hated asking for anything. at this age (7) I was also responsible for my mother, my older sister, and my younger brother. It was my responslbity to take care of them, if there was a fight between them it was my fault and i had to fix it, if someone did something to me it was my fault, everything was my fault.

When I was 12 my mom was given 6 months to live, when she found that out I was given a choice my brother and I could live with my Uncle or my Father (who we did not know). My brother always wanted to know our father so we moved to Cali to live with him. the three of us moved to Cali from the south (a very different culture) and when we got there my world was stood on its head. Civilization had been abandoned and there was no sense of honor, no moral code, it was cultural anarchy. My father was nice to my mother my brother and I for the first six months, then my mother didn't die. The beast came out. He would beat me without reason, he put LSD in my food one night, and all around just compounded the maddness in the world I was already experiencing. I lived for others, I lived to make everyone happy, I lived to fulfill other people, and they murdered me. to paraphrase a poem i wrote 'You came to the well and I gave. You came to the well and you took. you come again and again, but now I am dry. and still you come'. I could not understand why I had to work so hard for everyone elses happiness and yet I had to suffer. We moved out from with my father a year after we moved in with him. Even though I only chose to live with him because that was what my brother wanted, even though everyone knew this, even though my mother left him once and for very good reason, I was blamed for us moving in with him. I was 12.

that year changed much in my life and much in me. It was that same year that I hit my brother for the first time, I had been beaten by my father for the first time a week before (about 7 months after we had moved in) and when my brother hit me it was too much. I punched him in the chest then pumped up picked him up over my head and nearly threw him into a wall. After that I got in fights after school a lot, i became extremely violent. I tried to make sense of the senseless, i tried to understand and make rational the irrational. I became destructive and wanted to destroy the world.

When I was 15 I got into a really bad fight hospitalizing 2 other kids, i left home the year before, I had no family, no nothing. during the fight I had cracked some ribs and gotten bruised pretty badly. A friend brought me to his house to clean me up and hoped to take care of me after my beating, the fight stopped when i had been knocked out by the third kid, so as you can imagine I was in pretty bad shape. at this time in my life I wanted to die, i hated life, i hated myself, i hated everything, I did not believe in god and yet I prayed every night for death [from a journal] "I do not care how, just let it come. Slow, painful, drawn out. lightning, a truck, a bullet, anything just let me die god let me die.". the only reason I never tried to kill myself is because I had become extremely competitive, if I killed myself they (the rest of the world) would have won.). I had less than nothing, even my friends didn't know me and were afraid of me. I finally decided that I either wanted to find something to live for or to die. After a long nap I sat down at a kitchen table and wrote an essay on the nature of reality and truth. I spent four pages disproving the subjectivity of reality, I spent the other 15 pages proving the objectivity of reality.

After that everything in my life changed completely and fully, i was no longer senselessly violent, I was more feared than before but for different reasons, I still hated but I hated with reason. I was feared because I became ruthlessly rational, I hated the willfully stupid, I directed violence to impose justice. I am not going to claim that I became a hero in an Ayn Rand novel because that would not be true, however I became devoted to questions of truth, reality, and justice. The good christians tried to convert me all the time from my evil and wicked ways, my favorite saying to them was "I have but one God and its name is Truth, Truth is God.". I began by slow struggle to shed my unearned guilt, I stopped living for the happiness of others.

When I was 17 i read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and loved it, i disagreed with much of it but I loved it and saw much truth in it. What I disagreed with however was the idea of cannibalism, the idea of "will to power", It is funny because that was a central point and i agreed with the idea of will to power but i disagreed with Nietzsche's will to power.

Now on being a teenager and an objectivist.

You learn very quickly that it is a very lonely struggle, you find few bright lights on your path, and worse still is if and when you see those lights snuffed out. When you commit to truth you will find that few people like you, they would much rather live in their world of delusion. However, don't think i mean you are miserable the whole time. In the words of one God "the pain only goes down to a certain point.". There is a lot of enjoyment to be had and a lot more happiness. When you do find those lights it brings more joy to your life than you can imagine, you also are happy in your own rightness. If you are truly committed to the God Truth you are just as happy in your wrongness because you can correct your errors. And most of all you are happy because your life is your own.

I had a very tight inner circle of aquantinaces and the best times were when we would get into debates on any subject. I wish I had discovered Rand at that age because if i had than perhaps I would have started and Ayn Rand Society on campus.

The one thing to remember however is that you unlike the sheeple can be happy, where as they can never know happiness no matter how much they pretend. "Fake it until you make it" is a fraud fools gold does not become real gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not been on in a few days and this thread caught my eye so I thought to give some input.

I will begin by saying I was an objectivist before I discovered Mrs. Rand, depending on how you count it I have been an objectivist since I was 15, or rather I began down the path of objectivism at 15. As some background I was a passivist as a kid, my brother younger brother had a sever case of ADHD and was like a stick of dynamite and you never knew if he was lit. He was only 18 months younger than I but has always been much stronger (had a 6 pack at age 4), and he would beat me pretty badly when we were younger. At that time in my life I was the ideal altruist, I was nearly completely selfless (Prometheus forgive me). Even at a very young age I understood much more than most people think kids understand. For an example as to how selfless I was we always had HUGE Christmas's, lots and lots of presents, it was wrong to be selfish and to want things so no matter how much I wanted something I would not ask for it. My mom had to force me to give her a christmas list and I wouldn't put more than 10 things on it and always inexpensive things. I got much more than those things but I hated asking for anything. at this age (7) I was also responsible for my mother, my older sister, and my younger brother. It was my responslbity to take care of them, if there was a fight between them it was my fault and i had to fix it, if someone did something to me it was my fault, everything was my fault.

When I was 12 my mom was given 6 months to live, when she found that out I was given a choice my brother and I could live with my Uncle or my Father (who we did not know). My brother always wanted to know our father so we moved to Cali to live with him. the three of us moved to Cali from the south (a very different culture) and when we got there my world was stood on its head. Civilization had been abandoned and there was no sense of honor, no moral code, it was cultural anarchy. My father was nice to my mother my brother and I for the first six months, then my mother didn't die. The beast came out. He would beat me without reason, he put LSD in my food one night, and all around just compounded the maddness in the world I was already experiencing. I lived for others, I lived to make everyone happy, I lived to fulfill other people, and they murdered me. to paraphrase a poem i wrote 'You came to the well and I gave. You came to the well and you took. you come again and again, but now I am dry. and still you come'. I could not understand why I had to work so hard for everyone elses happiness and yet I had to suffer. We moved out from with my father a year after we moved in with him. Even though I only chose to live with him because that was what my brother wanted, even though everyone knew this, even though my mother left him once and for very good reason, I was blamed for us moving in with him. I was 12.

that year changed much in my life and much in me. It was that same year that I hit my brother for the first time, I had been beaten by my father for the first time a week before (about 7 months after we had moved in) and when my brother hit me it was too much. I punched him in the chest then pumped up picked him up over my head and nearly threw him into a wall. After that I got in fights after school a lot, i became extremely violent. I tried to make sense of the senseless, i tried to understand and make rational the irrational. I became destructive and wanted to destroy the world.

When I was 15 I got into a really bad fight hospitalizing 2 other kids, i left home the year before, I had no family, no nothing. during the fight I had cracked some ribs and gotten bruised pretty badly. A friend brought me to his house to clean me up and hoped to take care of me after my beating, the fight stopped when i had been knocked out by the third kid, so as you can imagine I was in pretty bad shape. at this time in my life I wanted to die, i hated life, i hated myself, i hated everything, I did not believe in god and yet I prayed every night for death [from a journal] "I do not care how, just let it come. Slow, painful, drawn out. lightning, a truck, a bullet, anything just let me die god let me die.". the only reason I never tried to kill myself is because I had become extremely competitive, if I killed myself they (the rest of the world) would have won.). I had less than nothing, even my friends didn't know me and were afraid of me. I finally decided that I either wanted to find something to live for or to die. After a long nap I sat down at a kitchen table and wrote an essay on the nature of reality and truth. I spent four pages disproving the subjectivity of reality, I spent the other 15 pages proving the objectivity of reality.

After that everything in my life changed completely and fully, i was no longer senselessly violent, I was more feared than before but for different reasons, I still hated but I hated with reason. I was feared because I became ruthlessly rational, I hated the willfully stupid, I directed violence to impose justice. I am not going to claim that I became a hero in an Ayn Rand novel because that would not be true, however I became devoted to questions of truth, reality, and justice. The good christians tried to convert me all the time from my evil and wicked ways, my favorite saying to them was "I have but one God and its name is Truth, Truth is God.". I began by slow struggle to shed my unearned guilt, I stopped living for the happiness of others.

When I was 17 i read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and loved it, i disagreed with much of it but I loved it and saw much truth in it. What I disagreed with however was the idea of cannibalism, the idea of "will to power", It is funny because that was a central point and i agreed with the idea of will to power but i disagreed with Nietzsche's will to power.

Now on being a teenager and an objectivist.

You learn very quickly that it is a very lonely struggle, you find few bright lights on your path, and worse still is if and when you see those lights snuffed out. When you commit to truth you will find that few people like you, they would much rather live in their world of delusion. However, don't think i mean you are miserable the whole time. In the words of one God "the pain only goes down to a certain point.". There is a lot of enjoyment to be had and a lot more happiness. When you do find those lights it brings more joy to your life than you can imagine, you also are happy in your own rightness. If you are truly committed to the God Truth you are just as happy in your wrongness because you can correct your errors. And most of all you are happy because your life is your own.

I had a very tight inner circle of aquantinaces and the best times were when we would get into debates on any subject. I wish I had discovered Rand at that age because if i had than perhaps I would have started and Ayn Rand Society on campus.

The one thing to remember however is that you unlike the sheeple can be happy, where as they can never know happiness no matter how much they pretend. "Fake it until you make it" is a fraud fools gold does not become real gold.

Wow, you've been through hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you've been through hell.

Hell? I have only skimmed the surface of my life. I have been through hard times and good. I have lived my life for many years by the axiom adversity leads to triumph.

It matters so much how adversity is processed by the mind--and how one then acts.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Wow, you've been through hell.

Hell? I have only skimmed the surface of my life. I have been through hard times and good. I have lived my life for many years by the axiom adversity leads to triumph.

It matters so much how adversity is processed by the mind--and how one then acts.

--Brant

Apparently Nietzsche was right...

Whatever doesn't kill us really can make us stronger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you've been through hell.

Hell? I have only skimmed the surface of my life. I have been through hard times and good. I have lived my life for many years by the axiom adversity leads to triumph.

It matters so much how adversity is processed by the mind--and how one then acts.

--Brant

Apparently Nietzsche was right...

Whatever doesn't kill us really can make us stronger

Dennis:

Is this under the "non-fiction bullshit" section in the public library?

Global distress!! How was that defined for this "study"?

Also. who or what funded this study?

Adam

amazed at what passes for research these days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis:

Is this under the "non-fiction bullshit" section in the public library?

Global distress!! How was that defined for this "study"?

Also. who or what funded this study?

Adam

amazed at what passes for research these days

Adam,

Here is the abstract from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Quite frankly, the details of it do not interest me all that much. I agree that a lot of so-called research is poorly conceived and often worthless. I found this study mildly intriguing because of its alleged intent to corroborate a Nietzschean aphorism.

Like many such studies, this one just confirms the obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis:

Is this under the "non-fiction bullshit" section in the public library?

Global distress!! How was that defined for this "study"?

Also. who or what funded this study?

Adam

amazed at what passes for research these days

Adam,

Here is the abstract from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Quite frankly, the details of it do not interest me all that much. I agree that a lot of so-called research is poorly conceived and often worthless. I found this study mildly intriguing because of its alleged intent to corroborate a Nietzschean aphorism.

Like many such studies, this one just confirms the obvious.

Dennis:

I did not mean to insinuate that you validated the reason or use of the study. My students would quote a study mentioned by the NY Times in an article as evidentiary support of point x or y or z, some of those points I agreed with, but as a instructor of rhetoric, it was incumbent upon me to challenge the source and funding of the study. When I would question them, they would get a haughty or hurt look and say, adamantly, "...but, it is in the NY Times!," as if that gave the source or the study credibility/

I was hoping that you might know who funded it, how the internal dynamics and statistical analysis was made.

However, since today we have a Tom Lehrer theme it allows me to sneak in his Sociology song:

Thanks.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

the socialism is much worse in history and economic depts. I once had to repay the GI bill for flunking a class. I flunked because I dared to challenge the Marxist teacher, who claimed that giving a 10% profit to a private company, to do something that the "govt can do" was just a waste. I stood up and asked for an example where govt did ANYTHING for 1/10 what a private company did it for. I used the PO as an example. If UPS tried to run itself the way the PO is run, the company would be in bankruptcy in a month! UPS has no trouble at all delivering i 24 hours. The PO CANNOT make a claim, and back it up, for delivery in 48 hours, despite literally having POLICE powers. Were you aware that an armory full of pistols is in EVERY post office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the socialism is much worse in history and economic depts. I once had to repay the GI bill for flunking a class. I flunked because I dared to challenge the Marxist teacher, who claimed that giving a 10% profit to a private company, to do something that the "govt can do" was just a waste. I stood up and asked for an example where govt did ANYTHING for 1/10 what a private company did it for. I used the PO as an example. If UPS tried to run itself the way the PO is run, the company would be in bankruptcy in a month! UPS has no trouble at all delivering i 24 hours. The PO CANNOT make a claim, and back it up, for delivery in 48 hours, despite literally having POLICE powers. Were you aware that an armory full of pistols is in EVERY post office?

And if you use the mail box which you bought with your own money for any other use than to receive U.S. mail, you will find yourself in legal difficulty. You bought the mail box but the the USPS controls it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Movement Objectivism (or Organized Objectivism) as it is currently practiced has to close a resemblance to religion. Having kids filled with much passion and enthusiasm but little wisdom and self control is a volatile situation. Think of teen age Scientologists and teenage (ugh) NEOs. Simply dreadful. If one wants to consider Rand's ideas carefully and proportionately they should be acquired quietly, coolly and without polemic. There is good stuff buried there, but there is also a lot of nonsense too.

Objectivism is a dish best eaten cold.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you do NOT buy the mailbox, you RENT it, actually, if it's at the PO, and I suspect that the law considers the box that you bought, for rural mail delivery, to be also "rented" in some way or the other.

I am talking about the mail box I bought at the local hardware store and affixed near my front door.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the socialism is much worse in history and economic depts. I once had to repay the GI bill for flunking a class. I flunked because I dared to challenge the Marxist teacher, who claimed that giving a 10% profit to a private company, to do something that the "govt can do" was just a waste. I stood up and asked for an example where govt did ANYTHING for 1/10 what a private company did it for. I used the PO as an example. If UPS tried to run itself the way the PO is run, the company would be in bankruptcy in a month! UPS has no trouble at all delivering i 24 hours. The PO CANNOT make a claim, and back it up, for delivery in 48 hours, despite literally having POLICE powers. Were you aware that an armory full of pistols is in EVERY post office?

And if you use the mail box which you bought with your own money for any other use than to receive U.S. mail, you will find yourself in legal difficulty. You bought the mail box but the the USPS controls it.

Whatever the technical legailty, the PO could care less what you use it for. What the PO doesn't want is anybody but them putting anything into it such as newspapers and advertiswing circulars. The PO legally owns the box once you put it up, but you can take it down anytime you want. I once took a letter to my landlord's mailbox, but I left it there with a fresh stamp on it. When the carrier saw it he merely cancelled the stamp and left it there.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As someone who is only partially an objectivist I will give this advice to a teenager:

One size does not fit all. When reading philosophy, always remember that the philosopher is decribing him or herself, while claiming that their way, their perspectives are best for all. Of course what they mean is that they think it would be best for him/her if all others adopted their ways, perspectives, judgements, etc.

every person not only has different physical talents, but also different cognitive talents. Some people will not be able to play the mental chess game of philosophy very well, or they may be able to but not care to, and some will care to but not be able to. Same with sports. Same with theater. and so on.

You have an ego, but you have not created your ego directly, in the sense that you say "today I will add to my ego". Your ego, combined with your talents, will determine your place in hierarchical society, and that is true even in India with it's caste system, however being born lower caste will hinder your rise in the hierarchy. The objectivist disdains religion, or wants it contained and confined, but if you were a dalit (lower caste person)in India switching to Christianity would improve your net worth and place in the hierarchy better than objectivism - and that is an objective fact - Christians in India are rarely poor by the third generation.

No one system makes the most sense in every instance. If you are an abandoned street child in India, objectivism will be of little use to you. You will fare better by stealing, that is, if you want to eat real food rather than garbage, and wear clothes rather than go naked. And nothing other than the feeling of destition (emotional despair) might be needed to convince you to, if you were lucky enough to have the chance, take a bed in a Hindu or Christian charity hostel (most street urchin hostels in India are operated by Christians), and have regular meals, nice clothes, education, vocational training and a path to a better future.

And as for education by religious institions, a large percentage of the Indian elite, the top caste Brahmins, have been educated by Christian, mostly Roman Catholic secondaries and universities. In India, the Christians have been chipping away at the caste system for several hundred years. As I write, the world's chess champ, two years in a row, is an Indian educated at a Catholic secondary. Much of the increase in prosperity in India is due to so many Indians being educated by Christians for many generations - the tree is now making fruit.

Any perspective is created by the ego, for egotistical reasons, by limiting the field of information. The perspective is then identical to the filter that limits. In other words, a perspective is a filter. The mind has to filter to avoid processing breakdown, and the filter is created by the ego according to need fulfillment. No one is in control of the filtering process, not even by rationality or reason (whatever those metaphors actually mean), rather, as the ego seeks fulfillment, in some cases cautious thinking through the matter will lead to what is traditionally called a "rational decision". But as the future is unpredictable, a rational decision(s) to pursue an ego goal may come to naught, or the goal may be realized serindipitously, for instance, by marrying rich. And one can get rich in other seridiptous ways, not involving the mystery of falling in love, for instance, the Rolling Stones, at the very beginning, were not following an rational or reasonable course but were jamming on their instruments out of boredom, or to get chicks, or perhaps because they just "loved" the blues. And it was not particularly rational for Keith Richards to take so many drugs, but then one day he got clean, married a young hottie, and lives happily ever after. While he was in his drug phase, one might have made the argument that he should have been more rational all along, and never pursued a music "career", which is such a long shot, and instead learned a trade and found steady employment, bought a house, etc., etc. And he was hardly a virtuoso on the guitar. But he did what he did.

"Life" does not actually make sense, which is why we make filtered perspectives - often that does lead to better results, or at least it is like a safe bet.

Like all perspectives, Objectivism is a rationalization chosen by certain individuals because they think it will work best for them.

In some cases, claims made by objectivists may be good for others or society, not because such claims are Objective or rational, but because certain game maneuvers and strategies work better over time in order to win, like the way the casino always wins in the long run, but may lose from time to time. The Game is not itself rational or comprehensible. Any attempt to explain the game ends up being a filter that leaves out some info. In fact, any attempt to explain anything is a filter.

As a teenager whose mind has not yet calcified, I recommend to you, thinking along the lines of the Paradoxical/Duality. One can't really make sense of for instance selfishness/altruism, and word based arguments for either simply reflect the ego needs of the author. Reducing the ideas to words is a filter in action. Strange currents exist in the human mind, in societies, and in physics and math, and sometimes seem contradictory. The contradictions do not always have to be resolved. The issue may not be a matter of selfishness or altuism, but both, and there is no need to define one by the other.

It is hard to make sense of the life and work of Giovanni Melchiorre Bosco (St.John Bosco) who was a bright, happy and energetic poor Italian child raised without a father, and who took it upon himself to teach virtuous values to poor italian street urchins, and persisted against much adversity, to establish the Salesian order, which is huge today and is aimed primarily at educating youth in impoverished nations, or marginalized youth in developed nations (such as Hispanics in the USA). (the recent salesian pedophfile scandal is limted mostly to a few in the USA) Was Giovanni being selfish, or altruistic? Most people will decide according to how they are egotisticly predisposed to decide. Or one could choose not to decide the matter. The many street urchins and destitute poor (probably hundreds of thousands to date) whose lives were dramaticly improved by Salesians will probably decide "altruism", but who knows, really? Do some research on Don Bosco India.

I know a little about street urchin rescue in India. One would think that every urchin offered a bed in a hostel would jump at the chance, but that is not the case. Frequent street contact must often be made to convince a child to leave the streets. the urchins are feral, and come to "like" their freedoms - between scavenging and stealing, and some menial work they scape together enough to get by and buy tobacco and solvents for huffing, and attend the cinema, and watch "blue" (porno) movies in the slum shacks of drug dealers. Convincing the kids to leave the streets is an art, which can be learned, but some do it better than others. In Kolkata, a guy from France comes to town often to talk the kids off the street - he is an expert, an artist. Why does he do it?

try to make sense of this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/4184493/I-founded-Future-Hope-not-out-of-pity-for-the-street-children-but-admiration.html

Final thoughts: when reading or listening to words, think about the metaphoric size of words, and the extent to which they have simple referents, like "pebble", or complex fuzzy referents, like "reason". See what happens if you try to unpack the metaphor. "Pebble" describes size, and possibly smoothness, but does not tell anything about the type of rock. An adjective could be used, like "granite" pebble, but then "granite" has to be unpacked. And "granite" can also be a noun, so why is it that nouns can be advectives? Unpacking "reason" is really hard to do, as attempts to explain the word will use other fuzzy words which themselves have to be unpacked. Two people may have an argument, and each may implore the other "to be reasonable". What each really means is "see things my way, as I want to dominate you with my will, rather than be dominated by yours". Conflict is natural and normal, and sometimes requires compromise. But sometimes one will not compromise, when the cards you hold seem overwhelmingly favorable. But can you be sure that non-compromise will not come back to bite you in the unpredictable future? Will you play it safe, or take the chance? And what is it in you that actually makes that decision?

While it is probably true that Capitalism is a better system over the long run than Socialism/Communism (I am using these terms in their broadest and crudest sense), in debates over the matter it is often best to ask a question that will trigger some more complex thinking, rather than make claims that the other party will interpret as an affront. Then you have to allow 1 to 2 weeks for the question to sink in. After posing the critical question, it is best to change the subject and to do something that will ingratiate the opponent, such as offering food or drink, or a compliment. Changing minds is not always possible with "logical" or "reasonable" argument, but sometimes requires a more clever manuever. Asking a question that does not require immediate answer is a tactic common in India - in some cases it is asked earnestly in others it is an evasion. How can the same tactic have different intentions? Don't we have to project the possibility of an evasion on the other person to begin to consider if they are being evasive? Is that scientific method? Such is The Game.

The Objectivists say that violence is never permitted except in self-defense. But how is self-defense to be defined? review the LTTE/Sinhala conflict in Sri Lanka - the hopelessly impoverished Tamils (LTTE)tried non-violence, but it simply brought them nothing. So they reverted to civil war - a really ghastly, bloody war. In 2009, after 30 years, the Sinhala won, thanks largely to an infusion of money and weopons from China. Now the Tamils are getting some developement and political inclusion from the victorious Sinhala - so they are getting at least some of what they wanted all along. Agression was the only path for the LTTE. Note that the war was prolonged and made more bloody - many civilian casualties - by Europeans and Canadians who sympathized with the Tamils, and sent them money and "negotiators". Certainly the sympathizers and negotiators thought they were being rational and reasonable. Which side was rational and reasonable and objective? Did the Chinese government act rationally? Now it is claimed that China is building a naval port in Sri Lanka - maybe the Chinese are playing The Game.

You might want to read up on Ontological Undecidability and Polynomial Theory of Value at the Friesian School.

Life doesn't actually make sense, and the objectivity of the Objectivists is only a reportage of how they are, a rationalization of how they are, and probably not a general recipe for societal success, I mean, do we all want to be like Mr. Spock of Star Trek?

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life doesn't actually make sense, and the objectivity of the Objectivists is only a reportage of how they are, a rationalization of how they are, and probably not a general recipe for societal success, I mean, do we all want to be like Mr. Spock of Star Trek?

rhsuperfly,

In other words, using your standard, I can conclude that your post above doesn't actually make sense, is not objective at all, is a rationalization for the way you are, and probably not a general recipe for any teenager at all.

Is that fair?

Cheers.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life doesn't actually make sense, and the objectivity of the Objectivists is only a reportage of how they are, a rationalization of how they are, and probably not a general recipe for societal success, I mean, do we all want to be like Mr. Spock of Star Trek?

rhsuperfly,

In other words, using your standard, I can conclude that your post above doesn't actually make sense, is not objective at all, is a rationalization for the way you are, and probably not a general recipe for any teenager at all.

Is that fair?

Cheers.

:)

Michael

"Cheers" my ________! Why would anyone come to a forum for teenagers and make such a statement?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

May I point out that instead of offering comment or insight with regards any of my comments or statements, you simply resorted to a really weak tactic - game maneuver - which is similar to the retort often given to the claim "nothing is true, all is relative" : "then that statement can't be true". Only those who are predisposed to dislike my commentary will be flattered by your response, and certainly one might consider that you were flattering yourself.

Paradoxical Duality allows for the statement "nothing is true, all is relative" to be an acceptible expression that does not claim to be true in the same sense as simple truths, like analytical truths, but expresses the idea that any one entity or system exists in some relation to another, and they basicly judge (assign value) each other.

certainly I can understand that one whose identity is fused with "Objectivism" would feel defensive at a perceived slighting of such, but that is the way the ego functions. The bait was set, not intentionally I assure you, and you (your ego) went for it and then, surprise, validated some of my commentary. I hope the teenagers grasp this learning moment.

You could have commented on a particular in my post, but chose not to. How exactly was your decision to comment, and how to comment uncoiled? Might that decision process have involved many currents, including an emotion?

Objectivism may be an integral part of your identity. It is only a minor sub-part of mine.

I think it is clear to most, and more so to the not-yet-calcified, that there are many paths in the life of a person, which differs from another person, and the matter is made unpredictable primarily because the future is unpredictable. What works for one will not necessarily work for another.

I would be curious to know your opinion of the LTTE/Sinhala conflict? Was Prabakaran wrong to pursue civil war, since non-violent means were unproductive? Compare and contrast with USA war for independence from Britain.

I would say that in both wars, each side acted rationally - pursuit of what they wanted. One could argue that if they were "reasonable" then they would have comprimised prior to violence. But then The Game would develope the tactic of threatening war or violence in order to get compromise, and that would lead to a never ending situation of threats being issued in order to get at least some of what is wanted by way of compromise.

It is far from true that Mohandes Gandhi's non-violence movement gained India it's Independence. A violent insurgency had existed since the 19th century, and after WW2 England was broke and could not afford to keep it's regiments in India. Gandhi came along at the end and stole the fame.

So, would you choose the path of violence to obtain what you thought of as your "rights"? Might the answer depend on both genetic dispostions and the particular socialization that has formed your self, ego, identity, etc? And then there is the strategy, employed by many of the colonists during the USA war for independence, of remaining aloof and then siding with the winner.

Do I need to mention the irony that 13 colonies of Objectivists would not likely have chosen aggression, if they kept to their Objectivist morals? Where then would Ayn Rand have gone to to seek her fortunes? The sufferings of the colonists was greatly exagerated in post-war literature - many were quite content. So IMO it really would not be honest, or historically accurate, to make some kind of claim that Objectivists would have chosen to fight, citing self-defense. And then there is the issue of property rights - the colonies belonged to King George! And what about the aborigines - did they not have property rights?

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now