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 unread


Post 0

Monday, November 27, 2006 - 9:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
After I was introduced to Rand by a close enemy in high school, I introduced most of my friends to her. I would say that two or three would call themselves lower-case objectivists in being rational egoist capitalists with good senses of life and productive jobs. Of them, I am the only one who continues to pursue philosophy for the enjoyment of the argument. In a sense, my "non-active" friends are perhaps "better" than objectivists, in that they are living their values without needing to discuss them to death. I am the only one of them who enjoys writing at length, so this may explain my otherwise "excessive" on-line posting. It is interesting that many others whom I introduced to Rand seem to have either "fallen away" or "moderated" their views in ways which I would find it embarrassing to bring up to them. But I do not socialize with this people much in any case. I find that a person's being an objectivist is not necessary for friendship, but that an active dislike of Rand is a deal-breaker. I require friends to be sincere and have values we can share. But I have also met many "haters" whom I have found out to admire Rand. This usually seems to be a sort of Nietzschean syndrome. I find people who find themselves superior for simply having read Rand to be bores.

Ted

Post 1

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What he said.  I agree that "... an active dislike of Rand is a deal-breaker. " 

The question could have asked what percentage of your friends are Objectivists.  In my case, I have few friends -- not even people I "socialize" with; my wife and I are reclusive -- but those few are all Objectivists -- and some are more than friends, being my brother and my ex-wife.  My ex is Coletta Perry of Avatar DPS, perhaps better known among the QuarkXPress and Adobe InDesign crowd, though, again, many of her friends -- though not all, or even "most" -- are also Objectivists. 

Same with my brother and his late wife.  He read Atlas when I went off to college.  After they got married she read it.  She borrowed my Objectivist Newsletters and wouldn't give them back.  (Maybe I can get them back now that she is dead.)  My brother, however, is as Ted said about others, a small-o at this point in life, as I am.  Being an anarchist pretty much demotes that capital-O and the small-o removes the incentive to argue over who deserves the big one.  (For instance, I would say that Leonard Peikoff is not an Objectivist, but you can see where that would lead.)

I have two friends (not relatives) who are also Objectivists.  We called and wrote over the years and now we email and we see each other every few years.  I have one other who read Atlas, but I am not sure how much of it affected how much of her, but since she is a science teacher, all that reason and rationality stuff probably seemed like common sense.  That is about the extent of my friendships.

Perhaps a good poll would be:
How many friends do you have:
A.  I would not be paranoid if I could find someone to trust.
B.  You mean, besides me?
C.  1 or 2
D.  3 to  5
E.  5 to 10
F.  Everyone loves a lover.


Post 2

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 9:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

How happy it makes me to hear when people are friends with their ex-spouses, loves, etc. Just for that, I will ignore your anarchist heresy. I realize that it rests on a misconception, not malice. :)

BTW, my "small o" objectivist brother can speak for himself. He's far to my right objectivistly speaking - a Stoic to my Epicurean, a hawk to my libertarian, a Newtonian to my Darwinian. He is all for infanticide, the random killing of animals and savages, a true draconian. He loves the Romans. I am very happy to have him as a brother, the father of my uncle, the husband to my sister, and the son my parents never had in me, who disliked organized sports. :)

Ted



Post 3

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 - 7:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Can anyone here distinguish between a friend and an acquaintance even if both qualify as Objectivists?

In other words, depending on how tightly you define your terms, a person could credibly claim to have many online "friends" on RoR even if he never met any of them face to face.  Likewise, another person could credibly call those same contacts "acquaintances" rather than "friends" even if he has benevolent relations with all of them.  Even in a live club format, all of the participants might more comfortably call fellow members "acquaintances" rather than "friends" in part because of common abuses of the latter term.


Post 4

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 - 9:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A friend is someone you have at least occasional in person contact with who shares significant value clusters with you and  you derive significant psychological benefit from being in their company.

Jim


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

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 - 9:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Friendship is nothing different than love.
Both are based on benevolent premises.

Ciro


Post 6

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 - 9:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alter ipse amicus. Amicus alter ego est.

Therefore, since each of these characteristics belongs to the good man in relation to himself, and he is related to his friend as to himself (for his friend is another self), friendship too is thought to be one of these attributes, and those who have these attributes to be friends.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book IX 4.

It is also disputed whether the happy man will need friends or not. ... while a friend, being another self, furnishes what a man cannot provide by his own effort ...
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book IX 9
 



Post 7

Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 10:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

I made this comment on the thread on silence with your question in #3 above. I am not sure if you saw it:

"A friend is a person with whom one can sit silently, an acquaintance is someone with whom one must avoid awkward silences."

I would also add that a friend is someone whom you actively seek to make happy, for the sake of their happiness and the joy you take in it.

A true friendship requires proximity, but survives separation.

A friend is someone to whom one can admit one's failings, vulnerabilities, and sins, with the hope of sympathy, gentleness, and understanding, without the expectation of pity, exploitation, and vituperation.

A friend is, as Michael alludes, another self.

Ted Keer

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.