Being an objectivist should feel like having superpowers

[anthony]

Huh.

(Short enough?)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... but that is dependent on the thing. Things first:)

tmj,

I'm trying to associate some concretes to your abstractions, which have gone cryptic all of a sudden.

Is this what you mean?

MIchael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

whYNOT,

there is no "enemy". The analogy just isn't a perfect one.

Similarly for "winning". I don't think of winning as something that necessarily involves someone else losing. "Winning", as I see it, is just achieving one's goals.

And no, I don't mistake logic for reason. I just think that logic is not an optional part of reason.

[tmj]

... but that is dependent on the thing. Things first:)

tmj,

I'm trying to associate some concretes to your abstractions, which have gone cryptic all of a sudden.

Is this what you mean?

MIchael

Sorry just riffin off of Greg's riff , seeing clearly is uber important , but things are seen, things come first, just waiting to hear which view I chose

[moralist]

Marcus writes:You say my original post has no relation to the "real world" (with no further explanation) then proceed to give me an irrelevant example of some random person you met some years ago.

You'll have to forgive the doctor's manic episodes. We tried to get him off caffeine, but to no avail.

If you read my *original post*, not skimmed, READ, I said nothing about feeling like I myself have superpowers. I said the result of continuous, demanding, lifelong practice results in abilities far above that of the normal person (akin to "superpowers"). I implied this is essentially a side effect (not a primary goal) of operating normally as a consistent, principled Objectivist.

I too, marvel at the accomplishments of some others, and appreciate the fertile American "soil" that allows them to grow and to flourish, because that very same soil is what allows me also to grow to the limit of my own modest abilities.

I am growing tired of the pointless, thoughtless criticism I am getting here for sharing ideas. Atleast tell me *why* you disagree. Or maybe just keep it to your damn self. Familiarize yourself with the basic principles of argument and debate. Put up or shut up. I'm ok with different or oppossing views, but I don't have much tolerance for unsubstantiated, drive-by trolling.

Don't give up, Marcus. Just ride out the storm because it's a minor squall which will pass quickly. The most fruitful opportunities are when your ideas come under fire. :smile:Regards,Greg

[moralist]

Tad writes:

Don't things boil up? Maybe when the irrelevancies evaporate away, the seeing becomes clearer, but that is dependent on the thing. Things first:)

I think "boiling down" refers to the level of liquid going down within its container.

And I agree.

Things first... because things are objective reality which is not altered by our subjective perceptions of it.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

Tad writes:

Don't things boil up? Maybe when the irrelevancies evaporate away, the seeing becomes clearer, but that is dependent on the thing. Things first:)

I think "boiling down" refers to the level of liquid going down within its container.

And I agree.

Things first... because things are objective reality which is not altered by our subjective perceptions of it.

Greg

That is true. All us poor humans get are the phenomena. The real stuff in and of itself never gets to us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

All us poor humans get are the phenomena. The real stuff in and of itself never gets to us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Straight Kant.

Ellen

[anthony]

whYNOT,

there is no "enemy". The analogy just isn't a perfect one.

Similarly for "winning". I don't think of winning as something that necessarily involves someone else losing. "Winning", as I see it, is just achieving one's goals.

And no, I don't mistake logic for reason. I just think that logic is not an optional part of reason.

Nothing close to what I said. Good, you know it all then.

[moralist]

Bob writes:

That is true. All us poor humans get are the phenomena. The real stuff in and of itself never gets to us.

I don't regard that as a problem, Bob. As a totally subjective being I'm on a need-to-know basis. And I don't need to know what things are...

...only what they do.

Greg

[moralist]

Naomi writes:

I don't think of winning as something that necessarily involves someone else losing.

How odd... that statement is so completely foreign to everything you've previously written. Have you changed your view? This isn't a confrontational question, but rather only for clarification. I'm totally ok with everyone's freedom to change their view at any time.

Greg

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi writes:

I don't think of winning as something that necessarily involves someone else losing.

How odd... that statement is so completely foreign to everything you've previously written. Have you changed your view? This isn't a confrontational question, but rather only for clarification. I'm totally ok with everyone's freedom to change their view at any time.

Greg

I have not. Whether or not some must lose in order for others to win depends on the context.

[9thdoctor]

You say my original post has no relation to the "real world" (with no further explanation) then proceed to give me an irrelevant example of some random person you met some years ago.

Victor Niederhoffer was one of the speakers at the Cato Institute/Atlas Society's 40th anniversary of Atlas Shrugged event in 1997. It was in Washington DC, and there were at least a couple thousand attendees. Other speakers were Nathaniel Branden, David Kelley, John Stossel, and John Aglialoro, who was already a few years into his efforts to bring Atlas Shrugged to the screen. Hardly an irrelevant random example, Niederhoffer is a long-time high-profile Objectivist, and was then flying high, you can read about it if you follow the link I provided.

Atleast tell me *why* you disagree.

MSK did a great job with this here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14213&p=205866

I haven't had time to post much lately, or even to follow OL, so I'm going to have to bow out of debating with you. Sorry to have dumped cold water on the fire of your enthusiasm, but I think you ought to be told, and sooner rather than later, how the "superpowers" notion comes across, however many qualifications and provisos you chase the assertion with.

[Marcus]

^ I'm at a loss at what this all means I'm afraid. You've essentially explained nothing. You have no argument to even begin a debate. And I'm quite glad you've decided to remove yourself from the discussion.

[moralist]

Naomi writes:

I have not. Whether or not some must lose in order for others to win depends on the context.

Ok. Fair enough. Do you make any moral distinction between those two ways of winning in your own life?

Greg

[moralist]

^ I'm at a loss at what this all means I'm afraid. You've essentially explained nothing. You have no argument to even begin a debate. And I'm quite glad you've decided to remove yourself from the discussion.

(psst... it's the caffeine)

Greg

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi writes:

I have not. Whether or not some must lose in order for others to win depends on the context.

Ok. Fair enough. Do you make any moral distinction between those two ways of winning in your own life?

Greg

Yes, in the sense that people should trade value for value in their interactions with others, and hence everybody wins.

[Brant Gaede]

(The quote function isn't working or I'd have quoted Dennis's #163.)

Sorry Dennis, but you came a cropper. Marcus is right in his complaint.

--Brant

over-confidence is a whole another matter, too

[moralist]

Brant writes:(The quote function isn't working or I'd have quoted Dennis's #163.)

This is I get around no quote function:I first highlight and copy what I want to quote.Then I click "quote". An empty reply box comes up.Then I click on "more reply options".Another empty reply box comes up.Then I click on "Enable html".Hit "ctrl/v" and what I copied will now show up in the reply box.Then I enclose it in [ quote] [/ quote]

and respond.Works like a charm. :smile:Greg

[moralist]

Naomi writes:

Yes, in the sense that people should trade value for value in their interactions with others, and hence everybody wins.

I'm glad to hear that you regard zero sum win/lose interactions as being immoral.

Greg

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I'm glad to hear that you regard zero sum win/lose interactions as being immoral.

Greg

Yeah, I can understand how one could get the opposite impression from my extremely cynical/nihilistic/machiavellian/social darwinist views on politics.

[Brant Gaede]

Quote function re Greg's solution: just as I can live without embedding videos and pictures and cute little jumping things in my posts, I can live without the quote function.

I don't know what's wrong. I know there's something wrong with me not caring. I'm likely some kind of weird sociopath.

--Brant

wordman

[Brant Gaede]

Naomi: Hold it right there; you've got superpowers!

--Brant

embrace them or lose them!

[Jerry Biggers]

This discussion seems to be wandering (OTH, it could just be my mind,..) from the original question/postulate stated by Marcus, "Being an Objectivist should be like having superpowers." (as in "powers ways above that of mortal humans",...don't remember the exact quote from the Superman series from the early 1950s). By the way, we're not talking about high intellect or even genius here. I will grant that Rand and some (not all) of her acolytes , are "geniuses," but genius is not the same as having super powers.

Marcus, Which of the following, all of which were blessed by Ayn in one form or another as having "gotten it," do you feel have displayed "super powers"?

Nathaniel Branden? Barbara Branden? (Both, extremely bright, possibly of genius level - but both got into a disastrous situation which led to the closing of NBI and the near destruction of Objectivism as a movement.). I might add that Rand herself did not exactly display her super powers before, during, or after this debacle.

Well, how about the "last man standing?" - Leonard Peikoff ? In what way do you feel that he has displayed - and used - his super powers bestowed upon him by Ayn? Do you regard his behavior toward others interested, or indeed well versed in Objectivism, that have had the effrontery to disagree with his interpretation on various issues regarding Objectivism or Objectivist authors? Has he shown here a real, no - superior understanding of human relations due to his super powers? Is "purging" from the Objectivist movement, those who have publically questioned one or more of his pronouncements, as he has done on multiple occasions, a sign of his super powers?

Let's not stop with Leonard. How about the last 30 years of ARI. Did they display powers far above that of mere mortals? Are they wowing the academic and intellectual world with presentations, striking new highs never seen before.

Finally, Leonard thought that the publishing of Atlas Shrugged would display such blindingly obvious intellectual virtuosity that Objectivism would takeover the intellectual scene in mere months. Instead, 57 years later, Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand are hardly viewed as dominating Western culture.

Now, if the originator of Objectivism cannot demonstrate her super powers in a way that is convincing to the whole Western world, why do you feel that those who read her now should be displaying super powers above and beyond what she accomplished?

[Brant Gaede]

Nathaniel Branden came the closest with his NBI years, Jerry. Ayn Rand too with the writing of her two great novels. But these were super achievements. They didn't decide to acquire super powers to do their super things. They used what they already had--the brains they already had. Now it's true that Rand thought it was all acquired and that what she did was possible to others . . .

--Brant

or so she said, but I can't reference this