Do you sometimes hesitate to call yourself an objectivist?

[AnitaB86]

Or do you not mind giving labels a surface to adhere to you?

[pippi]

Or do you not mind giving labels a surface to adhere to you?

What? I dont think I like your tone-it seems condescending. If you could prove me wrong I would be happily surprised.

What do you mean by "or do you not mind being a surface for labels"?

Edited January 9, 2011 by pippi

[Selene]

Welcome to OL Anita:

What brings you to OL?

Are you a student or a working slave for the state?

Additionally, where do you hale from?

Adam

[AnitaB86]

Or do you not mind giving labels a surface to adhere to you?

What? I dont think I like your tone-it seems condescending. If you could prove me wrong I would be happily surprised.

What do you mean by "or do you not mind being a surface for labels"?

Are you an Objectivist?

I'm sorry if I appeared condescending in my post but I assure you that was not my intent. I am just wondering why people are quick to assign labels to others as well as themselves. Just a wonder - nothing more, nothing less. A forum, after all is an exchange of ideas, not about spreading propaganda or bullying others into their beliefs (I've experienced this in another forum).

To answer your question, no I am not.

Edited January 9, 2011 by AnitaB

[AnitaB86]

Welcome to OL Anita:

What brings you to OL?

Are you a student or a working slave for the state?

Additionally, where do you hale from?

Adam

Thank you for the warm welcome, Adam!

I've been looking for an independent forum for some time now as I have been growing a bit tired of the Gender&Womens Studies section on Yahoo Answers (a gender war there, I tell you!).

I'm a student and a worker :-) in Texas!

You?

[Selene]

Welcome to OL Anita:

What brings you to OL?

Are you a student or a working slave for the state?

Additionally, where do you hale from?

Adam

Thank you for the warm welcome, Adam!

I've been looking for an independent forum for some time now as I have been growing a bit tired of the Gender&Womens Studies section on Yahoo Answers (a gender war there, I tell you!).

I'm a student and a worker :-) in Texas!

You?

Anita:

Thanks.

A mediator, divorce and family as a specialty. NY City boy all my life except for four (4) years in Virginia and the last three (3) in New Jersey.

What are you studying?

Is it true that the mantra in women and gender studies is:

"If a man speaks in the forest and there is not a woman there to hear him.....ready....

Is he still wrong?

Adam

[pippi]

Or do you not mind giving labels a surface to adhere to you?

What? I dont think I like your tone-it seems condescending. If you could prove me wrong I would be happily surprised.

What do you mean by "or do you not mind being a surface for labels"?

Are you an Objectivist?

I'm sorry if I appeared condescending in my post but I assure you that was not my intent. I am just wondering why people are quick to assign labels to others as well as themselves. Just a wonder - nothing more, nothing less. A forum, after all is an exchange of ideas

why do you ask whether people are quick to assign labels as your first post on a forum? It just seems a little off.

btw thanks for telling me the definition of a forum - i never knew that before

(omg I feel like phil)

[AnitaB86]

Welcome to OL Anita:

What brings you to OL?

Are you a student or a working slave for the state?

Additionally, where do you hale from?

Adam

Thank you for the warm welcome, Adam!

I've been looking for an independent forum for some time now as I have been growing a bit tired of the Gender&Womens Studies section on Yahoo Answers (a gender war there, I tell you!).

I'm a student and a worker :-) in Texas!

You?

Anita:

Thanks.

A mediator, divorce and family as a specialty. NY City boy all my life except for four (4) years in Virginia and the last three (3) in New Jersey.

What are you studying?

Is it true that the mantra in women and gender studies is:

"If a man speaks in the forest and there is not a woman there to hear him.....ready....

Is he still wrong?

Adam

Hardly. The mantra of GS, if you are a feminist is " Feminism means equality." They often use the reduction fallacy and fail miserably since I've called them out several times. You cannot possibly be for equality when all your posts have been for the equality of women. Its all an appeal to emotions and I can only tolerate rational posts.

Edited January 9, 2011 by AnitaB

[pippi]

If you dislike gender studies so much why are you pursuing it?

(Unfortunately anytime I hear the word "gender" my flesh starts to crawl-i am not sure why)

Edited January 9, 2011 by pippi

[kiaer.ts]

Perhaps you can define the term Objectivist, Anita?

[Mike Hansen]

AnitaB,

If you understand the objectivist ethics (as defined in 'the Virtue of Selfishness'), there is no hesitation to call yourself a believer in objective existence and reason/rationality (what I would say are the fundamentals of Objectivism).

And, if asked about one's philosophy, what answer could avoid 'giving labels a surface to adhere to'?

Mike

Edited January 9, 2011 by Mike Hansen

[BaalChatzaf]

I do more than hesitate to call myself an Objectivist. Why? Because I do not completely accept Rand's premises and conclusions. I do not buy her theories on art and romanticism. I think romanticism is irrational b.s. and beauty in art is largely a matter of taste and preference. And even more basic, I do not buy the premise that every decision that people make has moral/ethical import. On a desert island with only one human on/in it morality and ethics are irrelevant. I believe morality/ethics are meaningful only when humans socially interact with each other.

There are several instances in the novel -Atlas Shrugged- when Rand conflates moral rectitude with factual correctness.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

> why do you ask whether people are quick to assign labels as your first post on a forum? It just seems a little off.

No it's not, pipster.

It was a legitimate question about a new environment.

Why can't she ask anything she wants and not worry about whether or not it was a 'first' post or question?

Edited January 9, 2011 by Philip Coates

[anthony]

I do not buy the premise that every decision that people make has moral/ethical import. On a desert island with only one human on/in it morality and ethics are irrelevant. I believe morality/ethics are meaningful only when humans socially interact with each other.

There are several instances in the novel -Atlas Shrugged- when Rand conflates moral rectitude with factual correctness.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's Objectivist morality for you; hah, literally, for you.

To do with reason and reality, not for anyone's but your own sake.

What you seem to prefer is traditional-based 'other people morality'.

In O'ism, that's well covered by respect and benevolence for others.

(Now I know that you know that, Bob - so why am I telling you?)

Tony

[AnitaB86]

AnitaB,

If you understand the objectivist ethics (as defined in 'the Virtue of Selfishness'), there is no hesitation to call yourself a believer in objective existence and reason/rationality (what I would say are the fundamentals of Objectivism).

And, if asked about one's philosophy, what answer could avoid 'giving labels a surface to adhere to'?

Mike

I'm not criticizing the philosophy at all but its one thing to like the philosophy and its another to label yourself as such. What I keep wondering is, why must we have labels, period? I'm just asking for a rational answer, nothing to avoid.

[AnitaB86]

If you dislike gender studies so much why are you pursuing it?

(Unfortunately anytime I hear the word "gender" my flesh starts to crawl-i am not sure why)

Pursuing it? What an interesting assumption.

I'm not.

[BaalChatzaf]

That's Objectivist morality for you; hah, literally, for you.

To do with reason and reality, not for anyone's but your own sake.

What you seem to prefer is traditional-based 'other people morality'.

..... line omitted....

Tony

Preference? No. I simply do not see the point of morality or ethics in a situation where there is only one person.

Of course situations like this do not often occur. Humans are by nature the product of two persons and a human is helpless as an infant so it must interact with its care-giver or perish. Humans are born into social matrices where morality/ethics are relevant. Humans become isolated either by accident (like the Tom Hanks character stranded on a desert island) or by preference (some humans become hermits).

Rand herself pointed out that humans, are by nature, social beings.

Some of her followers have taken Rand to extremes and insist every situation be it social or isolated has moral/ethical import. I have been told on some Objectivist forums that the choice of ice cream for desert has moral/ethical import.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[pippi]

> why do you ask whether people are quick to assign labels as your first post on a forum? It just seems a little off.

No it's not, pipster.

It was a legitimate question about a new environment.

Why can't she ask anything she wants and not worry about whether or not it was a 'first' post or question?

I actually just signed on here to post an apology to Anita.

I am sorry Anita, I should not have jumped all over you in your first post here.

pippi

[9thdoctor]

I'm sorry if I appeared condescending in my post but I assure you that was not my intent. I am just wondering why people are quick to assign labels to others as well as themselves.

It doesn’t strike me as an insulting or otherwise problematic opening post.

Since I have a high level of disdain for too many self identified Objectivists, I don’t use the term to refer to myself. Though it depends on the context. If I’m getting to know someone I’m likely to refer to myself as a libertarian, because the political label is what most people fish for. Atheist or non-believer is the second most likely label I’m going to end up offering. From there my interlocutor may or may not sniff out an Ayn Rand influence. Very often they do. If not, I may end up recommending something by her. It all depends.

Moving on though, I have friends who are well read in AR, disagree on some points, and when we debate I don’t hesitate to say something like: “the Objectivist view on this is…”, rather than trying to pull out AR quotes as if I were a walking bibliography. So there are times/contexts when I’ll adopt the label.

[Robert Campbell]

Anita B,

Labels are sometimes accurate and useful.

Years ago, I called myself an Objectivist. I don't any more, because I disagree with Rand about a number of issues, mainly in epistemology and aesthetics.

There is the further problem that certain people, most of them affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute, want to monopolize the label for themselves and their tribe. Since they have become known for bad behavior and extremes of zeal, I'm willing to let them keep it.

Robert C

[anthony]

That's Objectivist morality for you; hah, literally, for you.

To do with reason and reality, not for anyone's but your own sake.

What you seem to prefer is traditional-based 'other people morality'.

..... line omitted....

Tony

Preference? No. I simply do not see the point of morality or ethics in a situation where there is only one person.

Of course situations like this do not often occur. Humans are by nature the product of two persons and a human is helpless as an infant so it must interact with its care-giver or perish. Humans are born into social matrices where morality/ethics are relevant. Humans become isolated either by accident (like the Tom Hanks character stranded on a desert island) or by preference (some humans become hermits).

Rand herself pointed out that humans, are by nature, social beings.

Some of her followers have taken Rand to extremes and insist every situation be it social or isolated has moral/ethical import. I have been told on some Objectivist forums that the choice of ice cream for desert has moral/ethical import.

Ba'al Chatzaf

To get context on this, Rand's answer to a query about morality was "it is on a desert island that he will need morality the most."

She was, we can gather, not recommending we should retire to an island. She was illustrating, raising an 'in extremis' argument.

Have you, Ba'al, never been alone? Physically, or metaphysically? Never faced a seemingly insurmountable problem, that not one other person can help you with?

That's the desert island.

Her novels and her life are rich with human relationships, so she was fully aware of the 'flourishing' of man in his natural habitat - with other people.

I do imagine her last years, though, when her life must have become her desert island. We can rest assured that she was well equipped for it, I think.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

s

Have you, Ba'al, never been alone? Physically, or metaphysically? Never faced a seemingly insurmountable problem, that not one other person can help you with?

That's the desert island.

No. But if I found myself isolated I would need basic survival skills more than ethics or morals.

1. Food, water, shelter, warmth are the first considerations, not ethical rights and wrongs.

2. Basic navigations skills so I can map the neighborhood. Any particular hazards? etc. etc.

3. Find out where I am and if I can signal my distress or communicate with others.

Where is there morality and ethics here?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

3. Find out where I am and if I can signal my distress or communicate with others.

Where is there morality and ethics here?

Ba'al Chatzaf

May I signal my distress, too? Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhh!!!

Ba'al, I give up.

Anita,

Sorry for this detour off-topic. It is a good question you ask, I believe.

Tony

[Greybird]

In a third of a century, I've never called myself "an Objectivist," except inadvertently.

I have, however, been Objectivist for those same years.

The difference is between, respectively, a noun and an adjective. The noun connotes making myself conform to a particular set of ideas, one that was fixed with Rand's passing. (I would not call it a reified and untenable construct of "a philosophy," as I've written about at OL and elsewhere. No such entity legitimately exists.)

The adjective, on the other hand, connotes ideas that conform with and contribute to what I accept as being valid, from my own analyses and rational processes.

Everyone would do well to be Objectivist. Nobody should limit their abilities, achievements, outlooks, or personal independence by being an Objectivist.

[Mike Hansen]

AnitaB,

If you understand the objectivist ethics (as defined in 'the Virtue of Selfishness'), there is no hesitation to call yourself a believer in objective existence and reason/rationality (what I would say are the fundamentals of Objectivism).

And, if asked about one's philosophy, what answer could avoid 'giving labels a surface to adhere to'?

Mike

I'm not criticizing the philosophy at all but its one thing to like the philosophy and its another to label yourself as such. What I keep wondering is, why must we have labels, period? I'm just asking for a rational answer, nothing to avoid.

AnitaB,

I'll happily cause myself to be labeled as a believer in objective existence and reason/rationality, but as some of the other posts correctly point out, that's not necessarily what the word 'objectivist' will mean to the person doing the labeling. So, whether or not I use the word 'objectivist' is a question of how the person defines the term. Frankly, here in Utah about 80% of the population doesn't seem to know anything not spoon-fed to them from the Book of Mormon, so I use 'objectivist' sparingly.

And we have labels because, for the most part, they work. One can't use labels as complete substitutes for rational judgment, but they certainly are handy for quick decisions. For example, think about how labeling works in driving. As we drive, our ability to label other drivers as "dangerous" or "likely to get into my lane soon" increases. As all of us know from actually driving, this labeling isn't always right but it certainly helps.

Mike