Why I am here.

[phantom000]

Let me begin with a simple statement. I am not an objectivist. I do not consider myself a objectivist because I have trouble agreeing with Rand on several points. I will be the first to admit that I have not made an exhaustive study of her writings, nor am I a philosophy major. Speaking for myself, however, and what I have read of her work, it seems to range from naive to foolish. Some of it is just confusing, but I did not study philosophy so that might be why.

So why then am I on a forum dedicated to a philosophy I personally do not subscribe to. The simplest answer is that I am trying to 'practice what I preach.'

In the words of a certain general...

So here I am, trying to draw wisdom from a new source. Ayn Rand, in what I have read of her work, does have some good points, but she also seems to have just as many bad points. I also do not believe in the idea that any system, political, philosophical, economic or whatever, must be accepted or rejected in its totality. I think one can find wisdom in objectivism without being an objectivist, just as someone could find wisdom in collectivism without being a collectivist.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

P,

1. What do you know about OL? 

2. Here's an observation with an implicit piece of advice. It comes from marketing more than Rand's work. You made an announcement to everyone here--all strangers--about what you, you, you think and mostly, what you don't like, here and elsewhere. So let me ask the obvious question. Why should anyone care?

Are you into wisdom enough to ask that question of yourself?

Think about it.

Michael

[Peter]

Greetings, why should we care? What was that about collectivism? Oh, it's Silly Time. Amulets? A wrist band may get you on the Wild Mouse at a theme park but it won’t protect you from harm. And there are no magic rings, my precious, my precious. Boardwalk Zoltan’s who can really tell what your story will be? Naw. Is luck a scientific concept at all? Are there lucky bugs like the firefly, dragon fly, or the lady bug? Nope, just bugs.

You’ve got a wonderful sense of direction? Try getting lost in a tall cornfield. I have one in front of my house. You can’t rely on the rows always being in the same direction. And you can’t rely on a constant noise to guide you. Rows weave around ditches and other obstacles. Farmers weave around sometimes only a few degrees when sowing the seed. The only sure way of exiting a cornfield quickly is to note your position with the sun as you step into the field. Orientate yourself with the sun and extend that to the place you want to exit and don’t forget it as you squeeze through the corn, Farmer in the Dell.

I still can’t think of collectivism as being good in any way, other than the collectivist rulers could make it a lot worse as in Hong Kong.   

[Jon Letendre]

2 hours ago, phantom000 said:

Let me begin with a simple statement. I am not an objectivist. I do not consider myself a objectivist because I have trouble agreeing with Rand on several points. I will be the first to admit that I have not made an exhaustive study of her writings, nor am I a philosophy major. Speaking for myself, however, and what I have read of her work, it seems to range from naive to foolish. Some of it is just confusing, but I did not study philosophy so that might be why.

So why then am I on a forum dedicated to a philosophy I personally do not subscribe to. The simplest answer is that I am trying to 'practice what I preach.'

In the words of a certain general...

So here I am, trying to draw wisdom from a new source. Ayn Rand, in what I have read of her work, does have some good points, but she also seems to have just as many bad points. I also do not believe in the idea that any system, political, philosophical, economic or whatever, must be accepted or rejected in its totality. I think one can find wisdom in objectivism without being an objectivist, just as someone could find wisdom in collectivism without being a collectivist.

 

Hi P.

I am not an Objectivist, either, though I agree with more ideas than you seem to.

Have you found wisdom in collectivism? Would you share some of it?

[phantom000]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

P,

1. What do you know about OL? 

2. Here's an observation with an implicit piece of advice. It comes from marketing more than Rand's work. You made an announcement to everyone here--all strangers--about what you, you, you think and mostly, what you don't like, here and elsewhere. So let me ask the obvious question. Why should anyone care?

Are you into wisdom enough to ask that question of yourself?

Think about it.

Michael

First, I searched for 'objectivist forum' on Bing and this was at the top of the list.

Second, I wanted to show I was not here to be an internet troll. I have seen people who join forums just to talk about how stupid everyone was, like someone going to a political rally just to tell everyone how dumb they are for supporting this candidate or party. Still, someone who is very apolitical might go to a rally to learn more about a party and particular candidate, and I wanted to show I am here more of the ladder than the former.

Thirdly, you have a section here for introductions so I thought I would do that. Also I was a little curious what the reaction would be, how this community would react to someone who takes a very moderate position. Before you ask, I was not expecting anything in particular, which was all the more reason to try it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, phantom000 said:

Before you ask, I was not expecting anything in particular, which was all the more reason to try it.

P,

Why do you think I was going to ask anything?

Frankly, I wasn't. Or at least I wasn't going to ask what you were expecting. No reason, really. It's just the thought never occurred to me. 

btw - It may seem like I'm trying to give you a hard time, but I'm not.

If you stick around long enough, you will learn the nature of this forum, that everyone thinks for themselves and speaks for themselves, not for Ayn Rand and not for any movement. (OL is not a typical Objectivist site, which is why I asked what you knew about it. If you get interested, I can go deeper.)

In general, we're friendly people here. We all start with a common interest in Rand, but each goes his or her own way.

But from the way you presented yourself, it sounds like you already know what we think--you make a point of telling us--and you want to make sure we are aware that you are above all that because you don't yet know what you think.

That's a hell of an opening act.

 

I know nothing about you except your words, but that's what they convey to me.

If somebody showed up in your life like that, telling you what you think and why they are not you because they are devoted to truth and wisdom (which, apparently you are not), what would you do?

Michael

[phantom000]

20 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

P,

Why do you think I was going to ask anything?

Frankly, I wasn't. Or at least I wasn't going to ask what you were expecting. No reason, really. It's just the thought never occurred to me. 

btw - It may seem like I'm trying to give you a hard time, but I'm not.

If you stick around long enough, you will learn the nature of this forum, that everyone thinks for themselves and speaks for themselves, not for Ayn Rand and not for any movement. (OL is not a typical Objectivist site, which is why I asked what you knew about it. If you get interested, I can go deeper.)

In general, we're friendly people here. We all start with a common interest in Rand, but each goes his or her own way.

But from the way you presented yourself, it sounds like you already know what we think--you make a point of telling us--and you want to make sure we are aware that you are above all that because you don't yet know what you think.

That's a hell of an opening act.

 

I know nothing about you except your words, but that's what they convey to me.

If somebody showed up in your life like that, telling you what you think and why they are not you because they are devoted to truth and wisdom (which, apparently you are not), what would you do?

Michael

(Oh I love this! It's like being back in English Composition. I write a statement to convey something and when you show me how far off I was I have to go back and rework it to get closer to my actual meaning. It's kinda Socratic in a way.)

I have this habit of trying to imagine a conversation before it actually happens. In the case of writing, trying to see through my readers' eyes and how they would respond, what questions they will be asking. This probably got reinforced as I was working on my Bachelor's of Arts in Journalism. My instructor told me that when you conduct an interview for a news story you are standing in for your audience asking the questions that they can't. So a good reporter has to get into the minds of their audience and anticipate what concerns they will have.

One reason I enjoy posting on forums like this is it makes me think long and hard about what I am going to write. Although I suppose I am not thinking long or hard enough...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 minutes ago, phantom000 said:

Although I suppose I am not thinking long or hard enough...

P,

Now we're off to a better start.

I generally open with, "Hello." Or something like that.

btw - Hello.

Michael

[phantom000]

Quote

If somebody showed up in your life like that, telling you what you think and why they are not you because they are devoted to truth and wisdom (which, apparently you are not), what would you do?

Is that really the impression I gave?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, phantom000 said:

Is that really the impression I gave?

P,

Probably worse.

Add a hefty dose of condescending to it.

Helluva hook for making friends or creating stimulating discussion with people you don't know...

 

Michael

[Peter]

"Oh I love this!" some guy wrote. Do ye be gay?

What do you call a hitch hiker from Calcutta? An Indian Thumber.

[Peter]

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Jerry Seinfeld.

Lyrics to the TV show “Alice.”

I used to be sad, I used to be shy
Funniest thing, the saddest part is I never knew why...
Kickin' myself for nothin' was my favorite sport
I had to take off, start enjoyin' 'cause life's too short
There's a new girl in town, 'cause I'm feelin good.
Got a smile, got a song, for the neighborhood.
Things are great when you stand on your own two feet
and this girl's here to say
with some luck and love life's gonna be
so sweeeeeeeeeet!

[anthony]

On 8/31/2019 at 6:01 PM, phantom000 said:

Let me begin with a simple statement. I am not an objectivist. I do not consider myself a objectivist because I have trouble agreeing with Rand on several points. I will be the first to admit that I have not made an exhaustive study of her writings, nor am I a philosophy major. Speaking for myself, however, and what I have read of her work, it seems to range from naive to foolish. Some of it is just confusing, but I did not study philosophy so that might be why.

So why then am I on a forum dedicated to a philosophy I personally do not subscribe to. The simplest answer is that I am trying to 'practice what I preach.'

In the words of a certain general...

So here I am, trying to draw wisdom from a new source. Ayn Rand, in what I have read of her work, does have some good points, but she also seems to have just as many bad points. I also do not believe in the idea that any system, political, philosophical, economic or whatever, must be accepted or rejected in its totality. I think one can find wisdom in objectivism without being an objectivist, just as someone could find wisdom in collectivism without being a collectivist.

 

Hi. Do you want to leap straight into "wisdom" - by by-passing "knowledge"? That's the lazy way many take. One may join a religion, a sorta "wisdom" will be given to one without effort. But then how does one know it IS "wisdom"? By what and by whose, standards? How can it be tested and validated? There, one is blindly accepting on faith, revelation, imitating previous' thoughts and beliefs of others. Very close by, are the irreligious beliefs many pick up from general "society", the "collective" who - numerically - MUST know better ... surely?

Or else, the hard and only worthwhile path: there is the individual's knowledge of reality. Which you have to undertake all alone by yourself through direct contact - perceptions, building into ever deepening-broadening concepts (i.e. reasoning). It may be best not at first trying to grasp Ayn Rand, in your casual reading of her "some good points"/ "many bad points" - (by whose, or by what, standards?) - see if you are able to identify, evaluate and encapsulate all that there is in existence, including yourself and "man". Without an objective method of cognition founded on objective reality, few if any will succeed. Could be at some point you'll begin to appreciate O'ism, but only if reality/existence matters to you above esoteric wisdom.

Perhaps -- I don't know, not being wise enough - "wisdom" is the consequence, when a mind has integrated a total sum of the universe. Wisdom, as such, is not promised or explicitly professed, in Objectivism. Non-contradictory knowledge is, with effort.

[Rodney]

My recommendation is to start with AR's fiction--and not ATLAS SHRUGGED, but THE FOUNTAINHEAD or even WE THE LIVING. Thus you can see where it all germinates. It is, after all, in her intention "a philosophy for living on Earth." The novels show a working-out of her ideas in life itself, and the terms in which she is conceiving it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wonder if this thread should be renamed to "Why I was here."

   

OL's a bad fishing hole for new disciples. 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

 

[Brant Gaede]

On 9/7/2019 at 4:12 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I wonder if this thread should be renamed to "Why I was here."

   

OL's a bad fishing hole for new disciples. 

 

Michael

Not a new disciple in this case, just a drive by insulter of Ayn Rand. You know, "naive," "foolish," and "confusing."

--Brant

and gimme me some words of wisdom; I drink from multiple fountains

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

  

[tmj]

If it were a youtube video it would probably have been titled "phanom000 destroys pouncing randian sycophants"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, tmj said:

If it were a youtube video it would probably have been titled "phanom000 destroys pouncing randian sycophants"

T,

... and fails to elicit from them basic critical thinking skills.

Michael

[Jonathan]

On 8/31/2019 at 7:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If you stick around long enough, you will learn the nature of this forum, that everyone thinks for themselves and speaks for themselves, not for Ayn Rand and not for any movement.

Except for Tony.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Except for Tony.

J

Jonathan,

And maybe William, who likes to speak for The Science^TM and The Oppressed^TM.

   

Michael

[dldelancey]

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 9:11 PM, phantom000 said:

Is that really the impression I gave?

No, not at all.  Not to everyone.

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

And maybe William, who likes to speak for The Science^TM and The Oppressed^TM.

   

Michael

True, that. Billy does love following the herd on a few issues. Toeing the line. And his own recommended tactics of dealing with those who harbor silly beliefs don't work with him. He no like.