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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 16Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 320

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 6:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke tried to illustrate to me:

"Romeo and Juliet might illustrate the situation you describe except that Juliet faced marriage to a stranger she did not love."

?????

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/13, 6:51pm)


Post 321

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 7:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, I have not seen the play since 1989 and I barely remember the lines from high school when we studied Shakespeare.  I just recall that Juliet's father betrothed her to some guy she barely knew and did not love.  When she said she wanted Romeo instead, her father flew into a rage, called her "baggage" and told her never to set foot in his house again if she refused to marry his chosen groom.

Talk about stress!  No wonder she killed herself.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/13, 7:02pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 322

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 7:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK, thanks for your public support and your friendship.  I deeply appreciate it.

Newberry, for better or for worse, I have the heart of an engineer and not an artist.  Ayn Rand was a romantic realist.  Whereas you found yourself drawn to Rand by her overwhelming sense of the romantic, I found myself drawn by her realism.

I will confess there are times I would like to be able to emote more.  But the amplitude of my emotions remains confined to a narrower margin than yours, apparently.

Perhaps I should make a sincere attempt at writing and posting an emotional story to stretch my emotional muscles.


Post 323

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 7:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

Thank you for your response. By the way, I don't think you are a redneck or "not a nice person", but you do leave me unsatisfied with your replies.

"..a fully capable and mature human can satisfy his own basic needs without "needing" others."

Basic needs, agreed. I am aware that if necessary I could live alone in the interior of Alaska. I have met people who do just that. I don't think you would consider these people as "fulfilled" and flourishing as human beings. Perhaps yes, but probably no. You also put "needing" in italics. So I think you know already what others are talking about in this discussion but you think the lesson that you have to teach is more important than acknowledging the points that others are trying to make. I DO NOT THINK YOU PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH. I think you preach a strategy of rationalizing your relationships with others before engaging in these same relationships. But what you actually do is present yourself exactly as you are and engage in relationships with people who are attracted to you. If a person likes you, I think you like them right back and are probably pretty generous with your time. You have told stories that demonstrate this fact. That is your basic character. Do you think your basic feelings towards people are wrong and need to be corrected? Why would we be born with these feelings as part of our personalities if there were no advantages to them? Is it possible that our very human sociability makes it possible to have a complex society of free individuals who can trade with each other and contribute to their mutual flourishing? Of course there will be individuals who take advantage of the goodwill of others. We don't design our basic strategies for dealing with others around the bad apples. We learn to recognize the unexceptional people who lack goodwill and keep away from them.

I'm afraid you have projected the impression that you lack goodwill towards other people and are only out to get what you can get. "I win", "I don't care if you lose", rather than "Win, win".

Mike E.

Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 324

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 7:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 Luke, I was also drawn to Rand because of her emphasis on reason and on objective reality. And I found precisely the lack of  these two things in many of your argument here. For example, I never described any situation. Instead I was trying to understand what exactly is an "dependent" or "co-dependent" relationship that fits your definition of dependence so that I could know better where you stand on the issue here. And this fictional Romeo and Juliet is what you gave me. Sigh. What else can I say, Luke? Can you for once, forget about Charles Givens, Franklin Covey, or other gurus, forget about even Objectivism and Rand, instead look with your own eyes, think with your brain, and speak with your own words, about what exactly do you see, and feel. You sounded much better when you do that. (Gosh, do I sound like Linz?)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/13, 10:09pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 325

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 8:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This has nothing to do with Luke, but...

Can you for once, forget about Charles Givens or other gurus, forget about even Objectivism and Rand, instead look with your own eyes, think with your brain, and speak with your own words, about what exactly do you see, and feel. 
This should be pounded into everyone who believes in being objective.

Very profound Hong, very profound.

(Gosh, do I sound like Linz?)
Sorry Hong, wrong accent! Wrong attitude! Wrong gender! Wrong forum! But, oh so right!


gw


Post 326

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 8:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That is, until I catch you, yet again, spewing your redneckisms at a woman.

Jon,

I'm right there with ya' Bubba!


gw

(Edited by gary williams on 1/13, 8:48pm)


Post 327

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 10:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is quite late and I just got back from watching Last Holiday with my wife -- a cute movie with a decent message despite some its usual Hollywood preposterousness.

All right.  I am trying to understand the source of the misunderstandings, etc.

First, the main reason I appeal to more knowledgeable writers is that they are, well, more knowledgeable.  But let me try to dust the cobwebs off my memories and present some real world examples from my own experience with people.

Second, I never denied that we all have a profound emotional need for bonding.  My point is not to fall into the trap of forfeiting reason for the sake of having others "like" you.  This happens all the time, especially with young people.  But even older people who should know better still do it.

For instance, a woman of my acquaintance from Canada had an Arab husband who dedicated years of his life to the Amway "business opportunity."  The motto of one of Amway's main leaders is, "If the dream is big enough, facts don't matter."  Her life became a living nightmare as he depleted their net worth in his pursuit of a "dream" that had no chance in hell of working.  When I asked her why he kept doing this, she explained to me that his insecurities, possibly aggravated by his Arab culture, made him want to "win the affections" of his Amway upline.  Thankfully, he finally awakened from the "dream" and quit the business -- but the stress will scar their marriage for life.  For the fallacies of Amway and its cultish tendencies, read Amway Motivational Organizations: Behind the Smoke and Mirrors by Ruth Carter, another acquaintance of mine.

I would argue that if this woman had kept rational egoism in mind, she could have had an iron-clad pre-nuptial agreement that would have put the kibosh on this situation from the start.  More to the point, the Arab in question forfeited reason in favor of emotion.  He allowed himself to become emotionally codependent on what amounted to a commercial cult.  His wife feared divorcing him lest she lose her three children should he flee to Syria with them.  This entire mess could have been stopped before it started with a heavy dose of rational egoism for both parties.  Instead, it became a destructive waterfall of dependence:
  • Amway depends on wide-eyed believers who "need" the emotional fix of "the dream" to build its commercial cult that studies show overwhelmingly lead participants to lose money.
  • The believers depend on the commercial cult of Amway for their regular emotional fix of pursuing the impossible dream.
  • The families of the believers depend on the believers not to go completely off the deep end and bankrupt the families.
For another example that will hopefully satisfy Hong Zhang, my neighbors across the street divorced about ten years ago.  The wife found a boyfriend but she tried to take her own life after the boyfriend left her.  That would be an example of a person becoming too emotionally dependent on another to the point of self-destruction.

For Mike Erickson, I already told the story about my derailed attempt at mentoring in my article "Hazards of Benevolence."  That was an incident in which I failed to calculate the potential payoff accurately.  I will give my wife's perceptive and intuitive approach credit because she predicted problems with that young man before I did.

By contrast, a young lady I had mentored about a year earlier successfully completed her English project on Ayn Rand.  I attended her final presentation and felt quite proud of my contribution to her final product.  However, I learned later that she had some issues with keeping agreements that drove a wedge between us after she agreed to help with the Objectivist Club at her university and then vanished from sight.

In both of these instances, additional skills at sizing up people using statistics and many other tools might have better informed me of the best path to take with them.

Well, I have tried to answer the questions posed while I was at the movies tonight.


Post 328

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 10:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 1/13, 10:53pm)


Post 329

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 12:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Out of some masochistic curiosity regarding what the longest thread I recall on Solo was all about, I just devoted the last hour to reading through this entire thread which I had been avoiding for nearly an entire month. Dizzied by the escaping helium from gasbags of floating abstraction and trying to scrape the muck of snarky comments and personal disdains aired in public from the bottom of my shoes, there was only one post that I learned a new lesson from and will remember a day, a week, or a month from now.

And that is George Cordero's heartfelt post #196: It had the quality of fine literature (for those of you who are so spiritually impoverished that you don't read fiction). It was concrete and grounded in reality instead of disconnectedly abstract. It had a soulfulness and authenticity that 99% of the other posts on this thread did not. It left the misogynistic or the resentful behind and was bigger-spirited than that. It was vividly connected to experience and to the kind of experience that we call can hope for. It reminded me of a woman who brought out the best in me all those long years ago.

Philip Coates

Post 330

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 1:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim:

In some trivial way, yes, I know whether my wife is happy or sad, alienated or connected, at peace or ill at ease and she knows that about me. Most of the time I don't know the source of those feelings. I also have to ask my wife in the appropriate way what she needs and communicate what I need.

For that, you have to share your feelings and the context for them.


Jim, let me be more clear about my position. It's not that I think a man should never share his feelings - that would be impossible even if he tried - but I do think it's a mistake for him to expect that sharing his feelings will have a positive effect romantically. In other words, it is a mistake to use your feelings as if they were tools for turning her on.

On a separate line of thought, the most important things in a relationship are to be lucky enough to meet the right person and smart enough to recognize it's the right person. Friendships and relationships should be easy. If it's a struggle to make conversation then it's no good. It should be light and fun. However, once you have met the right person there are ways to enrich that and ways to make it take a nose-dive.

(Edited by Lance Moore on 1/14, 1:45am)


Post 331

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 6:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Luke,
Thanks for the elaboration. I just scan through Romeo and Juliet in my Yale Shakespeare the complete works (I completely forgot about Paris! hahaha), and now I think it is actually a pretty good example.

Anyway, just to think a little bit further, why doesn't Juliet love Paris? He seems a very decent sort and not inferior in any way to Romeo, and he loves Juliet very much. It is entirely possible that she could be very happy marring Paris. But, alas, she chooses instead to die for that trouble maker Romeo. Completely irrational, isn't it? So, is this kind of irrationality in relationship that you are talking about and are against?

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/14, 6:46am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 332

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong asked:

Anyway, just to think a little bit further, why doesn't Juliet love Paris? He seems a very decent sort and not inferior in any way to Romeo, and he loves Juliet very much. It is entirely possible that she could be very happy marrying Paris. But, alas, she chooses instead to die for that troublemaker Romeo. Completely irrational, isn't it? So, is this kind of irrationality in relationship that you are talking about and are against?

Yes!  Now I want to take care not to drop context here.  A deeper problem here was the lack of freedom both Romeo and Juliet had.  Limits to freedom included family collectivism and laws preventing women independence from men.  The frustrated love affair between Romeo and Juliet resulted from these deeper cultural factors.

I remain compulsively skeptical of whirlwind romances.  I would venture to speculate that the passion between the young lovers might have eventually run its course and ended with a breakup in a matter of months.  I would argue that the absence of control these youths had at the personal level, i.e. their lack of individual sovereignty, contributed to their utter despair and suicides.  So they might not have been codependent on each other so much as codependent on the system of laws and customs that oppressed them.  The power structure depended on oppressing them in certain ways and in turn broke them into depending on the power structure to survive.

In contrast to this drastic political circumstance, my cousin years ago had a girlfriend in high school.  He eventually decided to go his separate way from her.  She became so despondent that she tried to commit suicide via pills.  That serves as an example of a codependent and selfless person in a free society.


Post 333

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 10:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

I can’t resist.

Is your post #329 a satire on floating abstract prose?

If not I am afraid for you.

Michael


Post 334

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

"Out of some masochistic curiosity..."

Masochistic curiosity only? Are you sure there are no nuggets of value at all in this thread? Do you think the lack of popularity of objectivism might have something to do about the total emphasis on man's nature being "rational" to the exclusion of any other possible elements of man's nature, for instance man's social behavior?

From Adam Smith: [The Theory of Moral Sentiments]

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. "

Does Adam Smith's observation on one part of man's nature fit in any part of objectivist theory of man's nature? Or is it merely a gaseous "floating abstraction"?

Post 335

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 11:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> Is your post #329 a satire on floating abstract prose? [Michael N]

No, it was saying that this thread is too full of snarky comments or personal disdain (as in "I am afraid for you") and floating abstractions as opposed to the vividly concrete and personal...as in George Cordero's post. Michael, it's not a floating abstraction to say "this thread is chock full of X and Y" just as one can say "American education is poor; our schools are failing" (if one reads the international test scores in which our country comes in near dead last among developed countries). Obviously it wouldn't apply to every instance; it is a broad generalization. In each case, you have to understand the point intended by the speaker. You can't logically object by saying: "Well, is that true of -every single- school? Aren't you overgeneralizing? Why don't you name all the schools one by one? What about private schools?"

Moreover, you are picking a nit and missing the central point of my post which was the second paragraph praising the kind of post George Cordero made.

Phil

[ PS, My post crossed with Mike E who asked, "are you sure there are no nuggets of value at all in this thread?" Of course there are nuggets of value! Just as a critic of American education is not to be read as critical of every aspect or every school, so a critic of a thread is not to be read as critical of every post in it. ]


(Edited by Philip Coates
on 1/14, 12:05pm)


Post 336

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 12:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> Do you think the lack of popularity of objectivism might have something to do about the total emphasis on man's nature being "rational" to the exclusion of any other possible elements of man's nature, for instance man's social behavior? [Mike E]

Part of being rational includes devoting proper weight, respect, thought, attention to social behavior, to emotion, to understanding the opposite sex, etc. Each of these three areas is a major and important part of reality and of being well-rounded. And therefore it is irrational to brush aside or give too little attention to -any- major areas of reality which impinge on you and affect you. It is anti-rational to say I am an engineer or I don't need to think about women (or men) or I don't like to be around people so I -choose- to not attend to these areas of a full, healthy, vibrant, well-rounded human nature -- in the real world as it exists. As opposed to in some "gaseous floating abstractions" (or fantasies) inside one's own head.

So, yes, any movement - or the people in it who one comes in contact with -which does not seem to give proper weight to social behavior, to understanding different people and genders, to the emotions will not be popular. Ordinary people on the street and even intellectual opponents will look at such students of Oism who tend this way as half-human or deeply, deeply flawed.

[Mike, thanks for the great Adam Smith quote!]
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 1/14, 12:31pm)


Post 337

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

"Part of being rational includes devoting proper weight, respect, thought, attention to social behavior, to emotion, to understanding the opposite sex, etc"

And that's exactly what this thread has been all about, with no consensus so far. Except we all [I think] like George Cordero's air of authority on the subject.

If there was a consensus objectivist view on this subject that elicited George's "sense of life" and positive perspective I think objectivist popularity would grow by leaps and bounds.

Oops. Missed your added remarks. We agree!

"[Mike, thanks for the great Adam Smith quote!]"

You're welcome!
(Edited by Mike Erickson
on 1/14, 12:38pm)


Post 338

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 2:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Good, Luke, I think I now have a better grasp of your position (that is until you started to throw in all those confusing phrases again. The bottom half of your post is very hard for me).

 

From our vintage point of view, of course we can say that Romeo and Juliet could have done this or should have done that. But - reality check. Imposing our “rational views” on those two, we ignore their reality, their emotional state typical of adolescents madly in love, and unique state of romance. I am sure there are biological/physiological basis for why people behave the way they do when in love, or what triggers them to fall in love in the first place. Though it still remains largely unclear. Have you wondered why Shakespeare is great? And why Romeo and Juliet has such a spell-bounding hold on generations after generations of young people?

 

“I remain compulsively skeptical of whirlwind romances.”

Whether you doubt it or not, it is real for many people and can not simply be wiped out.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 339

Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil, this is meant entirely in a spirit of good will and not intended as a "snarky" comment at all, but...you have "floating abstraction" on the brain! I mean, you are obsessed with it, bring it up at every opportunity and even, probably, misconstrue well-anchored abstractions as floating. You see floating abstractions under every bed and around every corner. Against this bete noir, ghosts and boogy men pale by comparison! I can just see you as a child after the lights go out: "Mommy, there's a floating abstraction in the closet!!!" :-)

Yes, yes; I understand that concretization is important and that many Objectivists do far too little of it. I do understand that. I do. But, you can also err in the opposite direction, by becoming "concrete bound" (another Objectivist catchphrase), and by dismissing all abstract discussion as useless or of little value, which I think is what you may be doing.

That, for whatever it's worth, is my well-anchored opinion, even if it doesn't float your boat!

- Bill

P.S. As for that 7 and 1/2 mile race you mentioned, how about a running abstraction? ;-)
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 1/14, 3:26pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 16Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.