An extended hand to each unique person on Objectivist Living.

[ValueChaser]

Greetings!

I am VERY pleased to be on this board. I do believe that there is no nasty aggregate of people here to thwart me! I use the term "nasty" because that is the word Diana Hsieh employed with respect to this forum. I was amazed at such a strong term. Well, I am in my early thirties. I have been reading or studying Ayn Rand and her post-contemporaneous followers for 15 years. As of a couple of years ago, I took upon myself the task of learning the details of the Objectivist view of man, and just how it logically leads to to self-sustaining virtues (i.e.rationality). I have done this through hours of studying Chapters 6 and 7 of Leonard Peikoff's book. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand .

Now, in the past couple of months, I have become spontaneously interested in Jean-Paul Sartre in particular and existentialism in general. When I was reading The Age of Reason , a novel by Sartre, I can't tell you how much I loved going to cafes and reading it after work. I would call that a Romantic book because its hero is constantly making choices in order to preserve his primary value, which is freedom. I plan on reading the novel The Reprieve, which is the second book in Sartre's "Roads to Freedom" series (The Age of Reason is the first book in that series). But now I am reading The Stranger by Albert Camus and after that I will probably want to read Camus' The Plague.

My impression is that Objectivists do not think that existentialism is a worthwile philosophy. Ayn Rand certainly portrayed it in an unflattering light. Guess what: I don't care! From what I have read, it is composed of valorous attempts at arriving at truthful philosophical points; it is also composed of actual truths. By the way, in a book about the history of philosophy, after reading passsages about Sartre I wrote in the margin: "Is existentialism the sick man's Objectivism"?

Anyway, this is the first Objectivist board I have been on. I am a poet but am not a widely published one. I look forward to sharing my art here with you.

Sincerely.

ValueChaser

Edited October 23, 2008 by ValueChaser

[Chris Grieb]

Value Chaser; Welcome!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

ValueChaser,

Welcome aboard!

You sound like a pretty colorful person and it will be a delight watching what you get yourself into.

Enjoy yourself around here. I am sure many will enjoy your presence.

Michael

[Guyau]

Welcome to Objectivist Living, Mr. Paschalis. There has been a discussion of Objectivism and Existentialism on one other thread that I am aware of. A couple of my own notes for that discussion are these: A & B. The originator of that thread has died.*

I look forward very much to the article you are working on. When I was an undergraduate four decades ago, I had wonderful discussions with my dear one concerning Sartre, Camus, and Rand. Those were mostly about Sartre’s doctrine that human existence precedes essence, and in general the depth of human freedom.

Would be delighted to see some of your poetry here. Again, welcome.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[Alfonso Jones]

ValueChaser -

Welcome to OL! Browse around, read widely.

Understand that we are a diverse group here. So you will see some rich discussion/interaction, sometimes heated.

Bill P

[DavidMcK]

Welcome Value Chaser, I would look forward to a brief review from you after you read Camus since I've never read him (or Satre) and am curious whether I would have to plow through it as though doing a chore, or whether I wqould be fascinated with those books. I've found some books that objectivist types aren't suppose to like but I do anyway...John Cheever, Dickens. I like this website because people are less concerned with orthodoxy than clarity.

[ValueChaser]

Dear DavidMck,

Actually I have read Camus and I enjoyed his style so much that "The Plague" is the next book I may read from him. The book I read is the Stranger, and I didn't have to plough through it. It flowed freely. It was intensely exciting.

This quote from Matthew Ward, the translator of the book, is helpful in answering your question. In the introduction he writes: "Camus acknowledged employing an 'American method' in writing The Stranger, in the first half of the book in particular: the short, precise sentences; the depiction of a character ostensibly without consciousness; and, in places, the 'tough guy' tone.

The book is anout a man who kills a stranger because the sun shined intensely into his eyes, causing him to mistakely believe that a suspicious stranger was coming toward him with a knife. He is arrested and does not make any excuses for the murder, because he cannot evade the fact that he alone is responsible. In fact he refuses to seek redemption while on "death row," when a priest begs him to do so.

I suppose that the book does for Camus' body of "absurdist" writing what Anthem does for Rand's body of romantic realism: it is a concise dramatization of absurdity and its effects, whereas Anthem is a concise dramatization of statism (and one's rediscovery of individualism in a statist world) and its effects.

After I finished the book, which was about one and a half years ago, I wrote the following ideas on the back cover, which I intended as my summary of the books theme:

"On Absurdity: 'Being at the wrong place at the wrong time' of 'Being at the right place at the right time' is natural and universal. So it is senseless to create and impose a social or religious 'norm' intended to placate or anniilate the effects of absurdity, which is a state all men appear to share. But the individual bears responsibility for the phenomenon of absurdity in his life. He cannot escape it--but he still must take responsibility for his part in it."

If you buy or borrow The Stranger, make sure it is the Ward Translation. This is because, in the introduction, Ward states that a previous translation of the book was not very exact. In the introduction he writes, "In addition to giving the text a more 'American' quality, I have also attempted to venture farther into the letter of Camus's novel, to capture what he said and how he said it, not what he meant."

May you have a rewarding emotional experience if you choose to read this book!

All my best,

John.

[ValueChaser]

Stephen,

Thanks for the links! So far I clicked on the one with the asterisk and read or skimmed (mostly read) that page of the thread. By most of the Sartre quotes you posted, he indeed appears to agree with Rand on this point: the universe exists independently of consciousness. And I have read the entirety of Part 1 in Being and Nothingness ; I remember Part 1 being entirely consistent with that point. I doubt he will just contradict that aspect of Part 1 in the remaining Parts, which I haven't read.

This book you mentioned looks awesome, because I have yet to see Sartre address the concept of happiness.

I copied the following "quote" from your post:

Aquinas & Sartre

On Freedom, Personal Identity, and the Possibility of Happiness

Stephen Wang (CUAP 2009)

[end quote]

T.Z. Lavine mentions in his book Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest that happiness does not play a role in Sartre's philosophy. But it plays a role in MY philosophy; I want to be happy. And yet I tend to agree with Sartre that an attitude of "Here I am in this unfortunate position that I cannot control, I will not get angry at my position, so I will patiently and proudly remain dignified," is sometimes justified. So I am intensely interested in seeing Sartre's views on and/or their implications for happiness.

Thank you for the recommendation!!!

John

[Max Eichelberger]

Hello. Welcome to Objectivist Living.

[ValueChaser]

Glad to be here areopagitan; but I have had pangs of loneliness because people are not providing me with feedback to my article as a whole--the only replies have been to one sentence of it! But--I am trying not to be discouraged. After all, not one person is "obligated" to learn from me or teach me.

[BaalChatzaf]

Glad to be here areopagitan; but I have had pangs of loneliness because people are not providing me with feedback to my article as a whole--the only replies have been to one sentence of it! But--I am trying not to be discouraged. After all, not one person is "obligated" to learn from me or teach me.

Saying from Perke Avot (Saying of the Fathers, a Jewish book of Wisdom): "Who is wise? He who learns from everyone."

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Max Eichelberger]

Glad to be here areopagitan; but I have had pangs of loneliness because people are not providing me with feedback to my article as a whole--the only replies have been to one sentence of it! But--I am trying not to be discouraged. After all, not one person is "obligated" to learn from me or teach me.

You must excuse some of us, we've largely fallen into two camps of cynicism. Some, like me, just didn't know. Others, especially the scarred veterans running about, know the habits of new members a tad too well. They come, they say hello, they post an article, they leave.

I'll stop by at the article later this morning.

[ValueChaser]

Glad to be here areopagitan; but I have had pangs of loneliness because people are not providing me with feedback to my article as a whole--the only replies have been to one sentence of it! But--I am trying not to be discouraged. After all, not one person is "obligated" to learn from me or teach me.

You must excuse some of us, we've largely fallen into two camps of cynicism. Some, like me, just didn't know. Others, especially the scarred veterans running about, know the habits of new members a tad too well. They come, they say hello, they post an article, they leave.

I'll stop by at the article later this morning.

In that case I'll have to post TWO articles

I don't think cynicism is really called for. Certainly new members would be enlightened by staying, since OL does have a wealth of intellectual material that one can learn from whether one agrees with it or not. That being said, OL is deserving of their contributions. But many people never get what they socially deserve, through no fault of their own. They are just in the wrong place at the wrong time to reap the social benefits of their efforts, like Ayn Rand. It is the absurdity that can rear its head in life. How is the OL community any different?

[Selene]

John:

One of my favorite quotes is that a cynic is a humanist with experience.

"But many people never get what they socially deserve, through no fault of their own. They are just in the wrong place at the wrong time to reap the social benefits of their efforts, like Ayn Rand."

The phrases I highlight in green are the ones I would appreciate you expanding.

Adam

[ValueChaser]

I will surely expound on what I mean. First of all, the highlighted quotes are in the context of my understanding of areopagitican's statement. I understood him to say that one camp of cynics (here on OL) are frustrated by the fickleness of "green" members (not in the environmentalist sense) who post sparsely and then who leave OL; and that this is the reason why there are very limited replies to the greens' posts. To this I wanted to say: well, what do these "elder" members care if the "green" members leave? Do they expect the visibility that is implied in posts with constructive criticism? Now if my understanding of areopagitican is accurate, what do the elders care if there is a great turnover among new members? I am saying you cannot expect staying power; you cannot expect new blood to build up your forum. Newcomers owe a spiritual debt to particular members if they are enlightened by a single post, for sure. But if an elder posts something that would be of value to some new member, but the new member does not read it because it is lost in a sea of old posts, the new member stays unenlightened by accident. The corollary is that much of our knowledge, and especially the people we meet in romance, are made known to us in a chaotic way. I would not have known about Ayn Rand in the way I have, if I was not a fan of Rush at age 15 and liked the song "Anthem." (I read that Rush explicitly dedicated the album 2112 to her "genius" but I am unsure if I read that dedication; I don't believe I did and for the sake of my point let us assume that I did not). If I did not like the song so much, the term "Anthem" would not be in my mind with the intensity with which it was associated. Furthermore, I walked into a library and there was an upright display of the book Anthem and I thought, "I wonder if this book has something in common with the song." And so I rented the book, yearning for the same general intensity of pleasure. If the display had not been up at the particular moment when I approached it, I would not have checked out the book because it would have been on the shelf. Thanks to Rush and a particular librarian(s), I came to discover Ayn Rand in the way I did. I often wonder how my history as an enthusiast for Objectivism would have been without Rush; and, now that I think of it, what it would have been without the librarian who placed Anthem on display. (Surely I would have discovered her in another way, I'd like to think--but maybe I wouldn't have discovered her at all.) As a "green" fan of hers, I came to pay homage to her greatness in the next several years in indirect ways (buying books, mentioning her approvingly, etc.).

If a good writer wants an audience but does not have it, why should he be cynical? It just happens to be that in the dominant culture, his work was not spread around. Ayn Rand did not reap the social benefits of her works among the intellectuals who dominated the "thoughtmosphere" of the twentieth century. She deserved to, but the honest intellectuals were raised on different ideas and many perhaps did not read her because they were not even aware of her existence. I'm not talking about the radical left who read her and denounced her. I'm talking about those people with whom you talk about Objectivist ideas, who understand them, and who say, "That is really interesting!" If it wasn't for YOU, would they encounter those ideas? But certainly those ideas are not the only reason they are listening to you for; something else brought the listener to you, unless you are advertising that you like her. Maybe they happened to be walking on the same street on which you refreshed yourself with a stroll on that day. You see what I mean? Coincidence is a large factor in the spread of ideas and in the consequent granting of spiritual respect to the ideas' originator. That spiritual respect is given in the form of a reputation. But many people do not have a reputation they deserve because they coincide so badly with the dominant "thoughtmosphere" (which includes the reputations of its dominant thinkers).

Thank you for letting me get into this interesting topic Adam.

John

Edited December 29, 2009 by ValueChaser

[Selene]

John:

As you fleshed out what you meant it became more clear to me. I am reasonably sure that my automatic alarms went off when the phrases "social benefits" and "socially deserved" were noted, as they had a particularly collectivist clunker clang to my ears.

However, you did confirm one of my prime personal choices that I made when I chose to spread the ideas that Ayn handed me on a golden platter. Coupled with my father's example of opening a discussion/conversation with anyone who came within five (5) feet of us allowed me the comfort zone to engage people about her ideas. I have been on message for almost five (5 ) decades with anyone including telemarketers who call me on their dimes...lol.

Coincidence, when traced back far enough, becomes inevitable. A Sanskrit quote that has helped me make sense out of the randomness that appears on the surface of social interactions.

Interesting tale about Rush and the library.

I wonder if, at a number of subconscious levels, we "listen for that call of an idea" to complete a need that we perceive at a "gut level". When I closed Atlas at about the age of 15-16, I can tell you exactly where I was and that I said to the firmament. "...but of course." As if the need had been satisfied and the logical tumblers clicked into place in my mind and door after door opened before my mind.

Amazing lady.

Adam

professional proselytizer

[klnielsen]

... Others, especially the scarred veterans running about, know the habits of new members a tad too well. They come, they say hello, they post an article, they leave.

I don't post much because I don't consider myself to be qualified. I'm not even familiar with the core Objectivist works yet, let alone the works of other philosophers. I have zero debate skills and no brilliant insights other than intensely personal ones at this stage. I'm a rank beginner; I'm studying and learning, but it takes time, and there are other things on my plate too. Since my initial long post (which I'm not exactly proud of) I've figured out that I'm in over my head, and probably became a member for the wrong reasons despite lurking before doing so.

I definitely don't want to post for the wrong reasons. Opening your mouth just to get your voice out there is a recipe for disaster. As I learned from Linux forums, asking a question that can be answered by Reading The Fine Manual just wastes the scarred veterans' time, and the answer can always be found in The Fine Manual.

Maybe this is why the n00bs don't last, or at least, don't post?

[Alfonso Jones]

... Others, especially the scarred veterans running about, know the habits of new members a tad too well. They come, they say hello, they post an article, they leave.

I don't post much because I don't consider myself to be qualified. I'm not even familiar with the core Objectivist works yet, let alone the works of other philosophers. I have zero debate skills and no brilliant insights other than intensely personal ones at this stage. I'm a rank beginner; I'm studying and learning, but it takes time, and there are other things on my plate too. Since my initial long post (which I'm not exactly proud of) I've figured out that I'm in over my head, and probably became a member for the wrong reasons despite lurking before doing so.

I definitely don't want to post for the wrong reasons. Opening your mouth just to get your voice out there is a recipe for disaster. As I learned from Linux forums, asking a question that can be answered by Reading The Fine Manual just wastes the scarred veterans' time, and the answer can always be found in The Fine Manual.

Maybe this is why the n00bs don't last, or at least, don't post?

I suggest not worrying about it. Post when you want to.

Post insights, IF YOU WANT TO.

Post questions, IF YOU WANT TO.

You have no involuntarily assigned "duty" to post. On OL, such a thing would be truly ironic.

Bill P

[klnielsen]

Thanks, Bill. I just didn't want anybody to feel I'd dumped them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Part of running a forum is watching this issue of people coming and going happen and be discussed. This comes up periodically.

I am almost immune to it now. Here is what I have found:

Some people come.

Some people go.

Some people return.

Some people talk about it.

And so on...

My suggestion, for better comfort for newbies, is to realize that there are 2 dynamics to every online forum:

1. Interaction group, and

2. Audience.

Then start with the interacting part. Worry about audience later.

Oodles could be written about both interacting and audience, but finding your way is part of the fun. In short, interaction is immediate and audience is earned over time.

How do you do this (interaction)? Address a person, not the entire forum. Respond to what someone has said. It will go naturally from there.

But it's OK to start threads and speak to everyone, even as a newbie. Just realize that "everyone" is audience and "a person" is someone you interact with.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basics.

There is one thing I do want to emphasize. The interaction groups that form on OL are not in the spirit of church congregations, nor are they teaching groups, nor are they personality cults. Granted, some points of view are promoted over others, some teaching goes on, and some people stand out more than others, but the real value of finding a group of online friends is sharing ideas, values and outlooks.

It gets lonely out there. It's nice to know that there are some people who think similarly to me, or use the same questioning method I use, or like some of the same things I do, etc., here on earth. And it's nice to know I can talk to them. If the people I live around don't want to talk about certain things I'm into, I can come here (or at other similar places online).

In other words, it's really nice to have social proof that I am not a freak of nature. By myself, I know I'm not, but having this social proof around sure helps when a depressing mood hits me. I know it works this way for others. I see evidence of it.

Objectivists are generally afraid to own up to loneliness, but it's something that we all experience when we are isolated too much. It's part of the human condition. The capacity to feel lonely is "the given" to use Rand's phrase.

On a personal level, John (ValueChaser), you are doing fine. Don't expect an audience too soon. You write lengthy stuff and people already have lots of demands on their time. Interacting as you are doing will bring you a good audience over time (believe me), in addition to some very good friends.

And KelleyN, there is a Chinese saying I love (did I write this to you before?): "Ask a stupid question and you are stupid for a minute. Do not ask the stupid question and you are stupid for a lifetime."

The general feeling I get from most OL regulars is that there are no really stupid questions from non-manipulative people. Not knowing is nothing more than not knowing. And the cure is simple. It starts with a question...

Granted, in the online world (and off, for that matter), you will find some of the more snobbish kinds who will try to make you feel like a worm for not knowing something and poo-poo and tut-tut over just about anything you say, especially if they get their hooks into your soul. My suggestion is to ignore them.

You wrote, "I definitely don't want to post for the wrong reasons." Well, excluding the reasons the tut-tutters try to impose, what on earth is a right reason?

To be fair, there are some wrong reasons. I seriously doubt they apply to you. Note that they all involve stepping on others and/or trying to control others. Here are some wrong reasons to me: preaching in a fundamentalist manner (both pro and against something, and it doesn't matter what the issue is), blasting out a high number of posts within a short time all saying the same thing in order to hijack a discussion, trying to intimidate people you disagree with to get them to mouth your party line or to shut up, promoting bigotry and other forms of raw senseless hatred, presenting pornography, spamming, etc. There is a bit more in the posting guidelines.

But presenting the wonderful person that I am almost sure you are to a group of other wonderful people? Heh. That's what everybody wants. The rest is the rest.

Relax.

You are among friends and people of good will.

Here's a fact. Being a good person makes you emminently qualified to post on OL...

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Michael -

Excellent and thoughtful post!

I almost just posted something snarky about me being glad that one no longer had to be "morally perfect" to post. (With all that past history on OL and elsewhere THAT would allude to.

But I didn't.

Or I guess I just did.

Anyway - back to ValuChaser:

Don't worry. Post when you want to. I personally think short pithy posts are the best. If it goes past two screens, some may lose interest unless you GRAB them with the first paragraph. (This is sort of like, well, writing ...) But you are unlikely to find many people playing oneupmanship type games with you on OL. Michael and Kat have succeeded in founding a pretty benevolent online community here.

Bill P

[klnielsen]

Thanks, Michael. I hadn't heard that Chinese saying before, and it make sense. That's exactly why I'm here--to "shar[e] ideas, values and outlooks" and generally connect with people who will be a better influence on me than those I meet in "real" life. Plus work at getting over my cynicism, from the types that you mentioned.

Having a long term illness is isolating. It brings out the worst in people, both in the sick person and the bystanders (often in the doctors, too). Also I admit that judging all of human nature by what takes place on Linux forms isn't exactly fair.

Thanks again, Michael and Kat, for keeping this forum civilized.

[ValueChaser]

Coincidence, when traced back far enough, becomes inevitable. A Sanskrit quote that has helped me make sense out of the randomness that appears on the surface of social interactions.

Adam, I beg you to reveal the Sanskrit quote. Don't leave me hangin'!

After the beginning of the New Year (2010) I decided to shift my personal study to an emphasis on Ayn Rand's idea that values are achievable, simply when life-enhancing virtues are practiced. Coincidence and absurdity may prevent (or facilitate) the earning of values, but this should not discount that the practice of rationality can and does lead to the presence of values in one's life. There are as many chances to practice virtue in order to achieve the happy life, as there are unchosen fates. The presence of the latter doesn't discount the former. Indeed, if one is living in a peaceful, safe, and generally free society--and if one is healthy and has the right philosophy on life--the practice of "value-causing" virtues is enough to severely delimit unchosen fates.

I have a general understanding of the 20th century existentialists' concept of "absurdity" after reading The Stranger by Camus, T.S. Levine's commentary on Sartre, and Sartre's novel The Age of Reason. It is to me a valid concept, which asserts that we cannot always reasonably be in control of the values (or as these writers seem to have emphasized, disvalues) that we "get". First of all, absurdity as a situation depends on absurd circumstances (i.e. birth defects in general, schizophrenia, elephantitis, being "in the wrong place at the wrong time" by accident). Second of all, it does not exhaust the field of ethical possibilities; achieving values without natural impediment is also potential. So if absurd circumstances do not characteristically befall us, and we choose to practice rationality in order to achieve survival (and happiness), the road is always open to happiness.

(I wrote my posted article because I was troubled by what I once saw as an intrincisist "apositionality" of Ayn Rand's theory of epistemology, a trouble that Sartre inspired in me. What started as a critique of Rand, turned out to be an incredible validation of her. After writing the article, my confidence in Ayn Rand's epistemology increased tenfold.)

Although the concept of absurdity leading to disvalues is meaningful in some contexts, I am more inspired by Rand's view of man as presented in the chapters "Man" and "The Good" (taken together) in Peikoff's OPAR: an organism who can meet his survival-oriented needs by using rationality to discover what is good for him, and then to act to attain such good. (My apologies to those who think that Peikoff has flaws that are so great that he is of no value.)

This is why I drastically changed my reading list from finishing Being and Nothingness to reading one of Rand's novels. I wish more than ever to integrate a proactive view of man into my psychology.

So Adam--I want to see this Sanskrit quote that you think solves the problem of coincidence. If it helps you, will probably be germaine to me!

--John

[Selene]

John:

An example of my poor writing.

The Sanskrit saying translated as:

"Coincidence...when traced back far enough...becomes inevitable."

Siddhartha, the stream of life, all being is a process.

Circularity. Predestination. The Arabic ...It was written.

Hell, American Calvinism of those that were already saved were written in a book.

As an aside, I laughed at the section of the Burn's book wherein she relates that Ayn

probed a Calvinist's sexuality and feelings in order to break down his "irrational defenses". [Pg. 153]

'Ol Ayn's instincts were excellent. Plus she was more than likely radiating sensuality. Add reverential power and you have a very

shook up young Calvinist. I was in stitches imagining what was going on in her mind. [

So, sorry to disappoint you, but that was the saying.

Adam

Edited January 12, 2010 by Selene