About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 6:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I see where you are going with this Ciro. I agree that there is a relationship between the desire to persuade, and a desire for self assurance. I am not sure it is causal, or even that the correlation is a strong one however. Nevertheless it is interesting.

The examples you sited seem to be (correct me if I read wrong),of people who were *lacking* in self assurance or self esteem, and were seeking to persuade or get approval from outside themselves?

While I was reading, I was thinking about others, Rand for example, who were *sure* of themselves and their ideas, and *passionate* in communicating these ideas. It is that side of the topic I am very interested in.

Far more important I think that the psychology of the one persuading, or being persuaded is the *merit* of the ideas.

Thank you Ciro for starting this conversation. I look forward to more :)


regards
John

Post 1

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 6:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro, After reading this, I went back and read Persuasion.  Both were excellent openings to a complex set of issues.  Harry Browne said in How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World that you do not need to convince other people and change society in order to live your life as you want to live it.  Your thoughts on persuasion reflect much of the motivation in political, social, or religious activism.  People of low self-esteem gain validation from the illusion that they have convinced someone else: they live their lives through others.

On the other hand, there are people whose self-awareness is rooted in never being able to connect with another person's ideas.  As you note, in the absence of a common enemy, small differences between allies are magnified. 

It might be that abandoning an opinion means losing something of your self.  It might be that altering the configuration of an opinion, strengthens the structure of your knowledge.  It all depends on the individual.

Thank you for the two essays.  And by the way, your English has improved since you first joined.


Post 2

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 7:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While I was reading, I was thinking about others, Rand for example, who were *sure* of themselves and their ideas, and *passionate* in communicating these ideas. It is that side of the topic I am very interested in.

Were they, John?


Post 3

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 7:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you for the two essays.  And by the way, your English has improved since you first joined.

Mr Marotta, I guess Andrew should get the compliments :-)



Post 4

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 7:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John Newnham wrote: "Far more important I think that the psychology of the one persuading, or being persuaded is the *merit* of the ideas."
How do you know a meritorious idea?

How is it that history is not simply a straight upward slope of better and better ideas being instantly accepted as soon as perceived?

I believe that who you are inside pre-defines which ideas you will find acceptable.  One of the common statements from people who discover Ayn Rand, and especially The Fountainhead,  is "I always felt (or believed) that."

There is a genetic difference between the Individualist and the True Believer.  Either one can be a Seeker.  (It is hard to imagine an individualist who is not a seeker, but perhaps that is my own limitation.) 
        The True Believers here post confessions where they "witness" about having been a Christian or a Communist, but now having found the Truth are happy to be an Objectivist.  I can hardly wait to see what the next thing will be for them.  Perhaps it is a stage some of us go through.  When I was about 17, I took a girl a little older than I to a "Basic Principles of Objectivism" lecture.  Politically active (we met in YAF), she asked me if I did not find all of these movements somewhat tiring.  Of course, being new to Ayn Rand, I did not understand what she meant and felt threatened by it.  By Ciro's model, I could not be persuaded.
       The Individualists are those who are themselves regardless of what they "believe."  Belief comes from learning and we learn long division and we learn how to factor a polynomial and we learn economics and metaphysics and all the rest.  Each learning must of necessity change you.  And yet for the individualist, there is a perhaps ineffable core that does not and cannot change. 

Perhaps that core exists within everyone, but some people are more aware (self-aware) of it.  Perhaps not.

Julian Jaynes posited the creation and destruction of the "bicameral mind."  At some point, our brains were like animal brains, bilaterally symmetrical.  Then, the left side became verbal.  People heard voices in their heads and did not know where they came from.  Writing (among other inventions) caused a breakdown in the bicameral mind and Consciousness (free will; selfhood) was born.  In the Illiad, men speak of being told to do things by gods or being moved by their spirits.  But in the Odyssey, our hero lies: he has a hidden agenda. Odysseus has a self in a way that Achilles never did.   Yet, 2000 years later, Joan of Arc heard voices that commanded her.  It was said that Native Americans did not know how to lie -- in fact that is one of the common attributes of so-called primitive people, that they do not know how to lie.  Therefore, I wonder just what fraction or proportion or population of the "featherless bipeds" around us actually have selvesThat includes so-called "Objectivists" who want to be told what to believe.

Perhaps the most damning observation from a Libertarian Party presidential convention was that when a candidate's name was mentioned, his supporters would not only shout, but actually pound their sign poles on the ground and hoot.  I believe that whatever "merits" are to be found in Constitutional government and free market economics are unperceived by that kind of person.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 7:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"How do you know a meritorious idea?" asked Michael.

Implied in this question is the old "how can we know anything?" or "how can we know reality or truth?"

Michael are you asking for a definition, or a summary of rationality, reason, reality etc? We know it, through the exercise of reason, and through an examination of supporting evidence. Often an idea is a hypothesis which has on the face of it, some validity. Of course, further evidence can prove an idea wrong and without merit. But can we know whether it has merit? Well...yes!

My point, in context, was that I am less interested in the psychology behind the one purveying the idea, than in the idea itself.

regards
John

Post 6

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 7:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote: "While I was reading, I was thinking about others, Rand for example, who were *sure* of themselves and their ideas, and *passionate* in communicating these ideas. It is that side of the topic I am very interested in."

Ciro replied: "Were they, John?"


I think there is much evidence to confirm that they were, Ciro, and very little evidence to suggest that they were not.

John


Post 7

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 7:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The examples you sited seem to be (correct me if I read wrong),of people who were *lacking* in self assurance or self esteem, and were seeking to persuade or get approval from outside themselves?

John, the fact that people seek to persuade or  get approval from outside
them self,  is very common these days to be seen as a sign of low self esteem.
I don't agree with that. I say that we all want the approval of those we admire
and love. Visibility and approval is something to which every human longs for.
We will have a problem of low self esteem when we long for approvals that we don't deserve? and here we can easily overflow  into narcissism.
Low self esteem is a  psychological problem, and as such should not be confused with our every day needed and deserved  approvals of family and  friends .

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 11/29, 7:57am)


Post 8

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 8:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 Perhaps it is a stage some of us go through. 
Mr, Marotta, automatized values takes time to change.
When we can control our emotions which come from automatized values
we can say that we went through a stage.
Some lucky people go very rarely through stages because they have solid valid automatized values. God Bless them!


Post 9

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 8:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How is it that history is not simply a straight upward slope of better and better ideas being instantly accepted as soon as perceived?

Some individuals do!


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 8:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think there is much evidence to confirm that they were, Ciro, and very little evidence to suggest that they were not.
 
John, we need to discuss this across table with a nice antipasto full of cheeses,
meats,  some focaccia bread, and a nice red.
You know what I will start if I only mention BB, NB, or the latest Valliant's book.
Ciro




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 8:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"How is it that history is not simply a straight upward slope of better and better ideas being instantly accepted as soon as perceived?"

Because "history" is often about the herd. Herds tend to make the mistakes, and adopt beliefs which are not reality based. But not always!!! Better and better ideas may not be "instantly" accepted, (many are discarded), they often enough are eventually accepted.

John

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 8:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LOL yes Ciro, I know.

You and I would likely have some mighty disagreements but in the end you are the kind of guy I would very much like to eat and drink with!

John

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 9:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,

Bravo!

One thing you did persuade me of with this second installment. Some philosophers and writers were crazy as bedbugs sometimes.

//;-)

Michael


Post 14

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 10:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some philosophers and writers were crazy as bedbugs sometimes.

//;-)

I didn't know bedbugs were crazy. This is a good place for learning new things :-) Thankyou for the essay, Ciro. It's food for thought for me.


Post 15

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John Newnham missed the mark:  "How do you know a meritorious idea?" asked Michael.
Implied in this question is the old "how can we know anything?" or "how can we know reality or truth?"
Perhaps I was being too rhetorical.  My point was that what you regard as a meritorious idea is a function of who you are inside, not what the idea is.
Swing and a miss! Strike two...  JN: "While I was reading, I was thinking about others, Rand for example, who were *sure* of themselves and their ideas... "
Ciro replied: "Were they, John?"
I think there is much evidence to confirm that they were, Ciro, and very little evidence to suggest that they were not.
External evidence is all there is.  We have no way to view the inner self.  Sometimes, with some people, we have diaries and journals that are private writings.  These illuminate the interior for those on the outside.  Rand's journals are controlled by people who maintain her public image.  Admittedly, nothing in them shows any hint of doubt... about anything...  Ciro's point is that such obvious certainty is not necessarily the experience from the inside

In fact, the way that Ayn Rand allowed or encouraged a collective to form around her indicates a psychological need quite different from the external projection of the always-self-assured Mrs. Logic.

In additiion, Rand's rejection of Rothbard's free market protection agencies has nothing to do with the merit of the idea, and everything to do with her personal (childhood) experience of the Russian civil war. 

John, I understand your points and at one level, I must agree.  However, once you turn the problem over, and see it from the perspective suggested by Ciro, you perceive facets that were not apparent at first.

For instance, reading the Q&A, Rand deferred some questions, for instance on how to solve South Africa's problems.  She said that there is no solution for the situation.  What she meant was: she did not know one.  (Obviously, there was one, and it was quite simple: abolish the apartheid laws.)  Similarly, on the question of capital punishment she said that it was moral but as a technical issue needed to be solved by jurists some time later.  In other words, she waffled.  There is much of this equivocation in her work once you start to look for it.


Post 16

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro d'Agostino wrote: "Visibility and approval is something to which every human longs for."
Thank you for pointing that out. I think that you are wrong about every human.  However, I agree that the humans here on SOLO fit that model.

 Objectivist psychology is between Scylla and Charybdis on this.  We admire pro-life art because it affirms our view of ourselves in a benevolent universe.  But, never, never, never, admit that you want other people to like you because that is not "visibility" but rather social metaphysics.  What I am saying is that I understand no essential distinguishing characteristic between visibility and approval.There are people who really do live by themselves (for instance in Montana) and never go to an art museum or see another person.  When the Unabomber (Dr. Theordore Kaczynski) was arrested, some urban (and therefore urbane) news reporters went to his neighbors and were shocked to discover that (a) no one knew and (b) no one cared.  They truly minded their own business.  People like that are true individualists who do not need other people -- or art museums -- to see themselves from the inside.



 


Post 17

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 6:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"My point was that what you regard as a meritorious idea is a function of who you are inside, not what the idea is."

Michael, your original question was not the same. You asked "How do you know a meritorious idea?" You are quite right that the judgement (meritorious, or crap) is a function of who you are. But if it were this *alone*, then what you are describing is subjectivism. In that world ideas would not matter. But they do! The personal judgement (merit or non-merit) is a function of who you are *and* what the idea is. The last, (what the idea is) has to relate to evidence and reality.

I am not trying to hit one out of the ballpark, Michael. I posted because I enjoy conversation with intelligent people.

John



Post 18

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 8:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While I was reading, I was thinking about others, Rand for example, who were *sure* of themselves and their ideas, and *passionate* in communicating these ideas. It is that side of the topic I am very interested in.

 
 
John, I am working on two more essays coming up soon.
Truth, and Creation.
With the first one, I will talk about some philosophers' attitude towards truth.
With the second, I will talk about the construction of the truth, which is not only
limited to philosophers, but to writers and  poets as well.
Ciro




Post 19

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 9:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Newnham hits.  It's a Texas Leaguer and he's on first...  But if it were this *alone*, then what you are describing is subjectivism. ... a function of who you are *and* what the idea is. The last, (what the idea is) has to relate to evidence and reality.
John, people accept or reject ideas for subjective reasons and then they justify their choice after the fact.  Read about cognitive dissonance.  I agree with you that the workability of an idea is the actual determinant of what a good idea is.  There is no such thing as a bad idea that works or a good idea that does not.  However, as Rand said, how you define "practical" depends on what it is you intend to practice.  People have the ability to suffer through much rather than change.  That applies to individuals as well as to whole societies.

I agree with you that Objectivism is a more integrated and workable set of ideas.  Certainly, the roots are firm.  Objectivism is a radical philosophy.  (Have you ever seen the dollar-sign-square-root for "radicals for capitalism"?)  Once you branch up the tree, however, discussions become interminable because different people derive different truths for themselves.  Case in point is anarchy vs. limited government.  Why does that continue as a discussion after FORTY years?  From my point of view, the govern-mentality of some people allows them to accept inefficiencies when the public police fail to protect their natural rights.  Obviously, any one of them, being Objectivists, could equally well characterize the failiings in my claims.  We cannot both be right.  Yet, we all know all the arguments (apparently) and make the choices we do -- again for subjective reasons.  Admittedly, some people (you, perhaps) are rational enough to change their minds when new information contradicts old beliefs.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.