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 1


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 7:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I doubt Joe meant the negative connotations that Erica suggests in her post.  I took it as simply a warning not to expect all Objectivists to have a formal education.  I saw the same phenomenon in Mensa.

I deal with educated people all day at work but most of them still have their heads up their backsides regarding religion.  I'd rather make friends with an Objectivist truck driver who aggressively self-educates through audio books and personal research than a formally educated doctoral scientist who keeps himself in the Christian mindset even though he is smart enough to know better.


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 10:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I doubt Joe meant the negative connotations that Erica suggests in her post.  I took it as simply a warning not to expect all Objectivists to have a formal education.  (Luke Setzer)
I appreciate the sentiment behind what Luke is trying to say, but frankly, "warnings"--- by definition---come with negative connotations...that's why they are warnings, as opposed to announcements, etc.

My post #19 was more tongue in cheek than some may realize; I am not actually under the impression that Joe Rowlands (or anyone else) wants nothing to do with Objectivists who lack a formal education. I just wanted to (gently) point out that the way that particular idea was presented was probably not the best.

I have an acquaintance who was "into Ayn Rand for a while" (his words) when he was a young man, and who ultimately rejected Objectivism...but not because of the tired reason we hear all the time from the so-called enlightened people: "I was totally into it, and then I GREW UP!" 
No, he decided Objectivism was too ELITIST. That's it. That was his big turn off. He thought that the philosophy wasn't accessible to regular people, and that it only benefitted the kinds of prime movers featured in Rand's novels. I found myself in the position of having to try to explain that nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, I was not successful; he'd already closed down his mind to Rand, and didn't really feel like revisiting her. But I never forgot what he said, and how unfortunate it was that he had gotten that impression.

Finally, if anyone wants to point out the "educational diversity" that exists in the philosophy's movement in a way that doesn't come across as a dire warning, how about this?

Not all Objectivists are highly educated (in a formal sense.) This, of course, is a  testament to Rand's positive influence on people of all walks of life and not just academic scholars. So you may meet Objectivist scholars and Objectivist plumbers, Objectivists employed by think tanks and Objectivists employed by rock quarries. One thing is certain, you will have no shortage of variety of people with whom you can mingle at an Objectivist conference! Enjoy!  

Okay. Maybe a little over the top. But you get my meaning, no?

Erica :-)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 11:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In Mensa, I met people from a wide range of education levels.  I like Erica's wording and consider it just right, not "over the top" at all.

As for the "warning," I took it as a warning against presumptuousness on one's own part not to assume that all Objectivists have a formal education.  This is akin to "warning" people against embarassing social blunders such as not to pick one's nose in public.  In other word, it is a warning against one's own shortcomings, not those of others.

Does that make sense and cast the word "warning" in a positive light?


Post 23

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 11:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erica said:
Not all Objectivists are highly educated (in a formal sense.) This, of course, is a  testament to Rand's positive influence on people of all walks of life and not just academic scholars. So you may meet Objectivist scholars and Objectivist plumbers, Objectivists employed by think tanks and Objectivists employed by rock quarries. One thing is certain, you will have no shortage of variety of people with whom you can mingle at an Objectivist conference! Enjoy!  [Emphasis hers.]
Frankly, I don't think this is "over the top" at all.  It describes my experiences at the TOC Summer Seminars that I've attended over the years.

Also, you have to take what Joe says with a grain of salt.  After all, he only has a Masters degree!  : )

Thanks,
Glenn


Post 24

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 11:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

...a warning against one's own shortcomings, not those of others. (Luke Setzer)
Yes, Luke, when you describe warning in that way, it is definitely more positive (and is probably closer to what Joe meant initially.) I understand what you mean now.
Thanks.

Erica


Post 25

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 12:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erica,

To put it quite simply; any Objectivist get-together where you weren't warmly welcomed, wouldn't be worth attending.

------------
and, by the way, that's not flattery; there is solid reasoning behind it.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer
on 1/28, 12:48pm)


Post 26

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 1:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would like Steve Wolfer to elaborate on what he means by "warmly welcome" and when he thinks the host ought to withdraw that warmth.

I assume he meant his statement as a broad principle and not just for Erica, i.e.:

"To put it quite simply, any Objectivist gathering where one does not experience a warm welcome does not deserve attendance."


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 2:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Luke,

I meant my statement to be applied as a broad principle, but I had Erica in mind as an excellent example.

Clearly not everyone should be warmly welcomed at a get-together. And, equally obvious is that this would depend upon the nature of the get-together, the person and how they act.

The nature of the get-together IS the context for what is appropriate behavior. For example, lets create a couple of categories for judging the attendee’s interactions.
(Kind of like the way one would judge a diver’s attempt in a dive contest – you know, style, degree of difficulty, etc.)

Intention, Style and Content.

Intention:
Even though Intention is subjective and at first glance shouldn’t matter, I’d argue that we all know how it affects our ability to enjoy the interactions of another. When I get too preachy, or some part of me is trying to get attention or look ‘smart’ – it has an affect. We all have our internal self-awareness that we hope will let us know when we behave from an inappropriate motivation – some of don’t have a very good internal monitors and even those that do don’t always hear it clearly. Here are some attentions that make a person (myself included on some of these) not as warmly welcomed: “preachy”, “not hearing what others are saying”, “passive aggressive picking at others”, “disruptive”, “not staying clued in to what the appropriate context is”, etc.

Style:
Are they assertive when the context makes that appropriate, formal or informal as the context suggests, are they able to match what others are doing or lead in a new direction as appropriate. Do they adopt a learning posture when they hear something that might be new and valuable to them? Are they able to offer something that others will value? Do they have a sense of humor? Are they sufficiently good natured, benevolent and generous so as to add something beyond subject matter expertise?

Content:
When they speak, what is the likelihood that what they say will be worth listening to – which goes WAY beyond just subject matter expertise.

So that’s what comes to mind for what I meant - in the area of broad principles. As to “when to withdraw that warmth” (and how) - that is more context dependent and really a different topic.

As to 'just for Erica'…. Well, hold what I’ve said in mind and think about her posts. She works for me as a kind of mental litmus test. Any Objectivist get-together that wouldn’t warmly welcome her holds very different standards than anything I’ve mentioned above and I wouldn’t be interested in them.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 4:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Erica,

I would not say a formal education makes someone a "true" intellectual, or even an intellectual.  I tend to use the term to describe people who are interested in and pursue ideas.  Obviously there are plenty of people who are well educated and that doesn't apply to.  In fact, working among engineers, I've found that most of them aren't interested in ideas anymore.

But maybe for the same reason you equated the two, many others do as well.  They expect if they're going to a philosophy conference or meeting, they'll get the kind of "intellectuals" that you were talking about.  And since I've met people who were shocked at the degree of education among people, it seemed like a useful caveat.

For myself, I've found education to be less significant than whether someone has an active or passive mind.  That's why you would be welcome at any conference.  Part of the "feeling like you belong" comes from the common view among the participants that ideas really matter.  When you get passionate about these ideas, you don't get the usual response from non-Objectivists that treat you like you're taking things way too seriously.  Instead, even if others aren't particularly interested in those particular ideas, they convey that they understand and accept your feelings about it.  Not everyone in Galt's Gulch has the same professional interests, but they can all respect the achievements and work of the other inhabitants.

That being said, I don't want to pretend that education doesn't matter at all.  I think Objectivism promotes a vision of an ideal person.  Wealthy, successful, educated, cultured in the arts, passionate, etc.  We rarely start off with any of these, but part of that vision is to improve ourselves and seek the qualities what will improve our lives.  Objectivism doesn't demand that everyone be a hero, but it should never be used as an excuse not to move in that direction.  The most important part is that people are pursuing these values.  As Glenn's comment about my Masters implies, there's always further you can go.  So the state is far less important then the process.

But the state is still important.  I have friends that can't read the Fountainhead because there are too many big words they don't understand.  I've heard of people (pre-school teachers, actually), who weren't able to identify "The country north of the United States".  How does one talk about the evils of Communism when they don't know the slightest bit about the Soviet Union?  How does one talk about the robber barons when they've never heard of them?  How does one talk about current politics when they don't know basic geography, what the welfare state is, or what the Constitution says?  How does one talk about the philosophy of science when they don't know Newton or what Quantum Physics is?  Education certainly matters.

I can also give a more specific form of this.  I've been to meetings where people were almost entirely ignorant of Objectivist philosophy.  That's not always a problem, depending on the venue.  If it's one on one, then it's an opportunity to explain to a newcomer these great ideas.  If it's a group discussion, it really, really hurts.  The conversation has to stay at the level of person with the least understanding.  If you expect to go to a meeting and have a very detailed, ground-breaking discussion, it won't happen.  For instance, I went to one where we sat for an hour and a half explaining to one guy that we don't accept science "on faith".  He was equating scientific theories with religious beliefs.  And he actually wasn't a newcomer.  Most of my experiences have been that way.

There are those people who are "elitist" or "snobs" or whatever, like you mention, who look down upon someone with less education, as if their own education is a symbol of status and not simply a tool.  For those people, they should avoid Objectivist meetings for everyone's sake, not just their own.  But my warning is more about keeping expectations reasonable.  The thing the people have in common is an interest in these particular ideas, and you can't assume or expect anything else.


Post 29

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 5:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hahaha. I just want to remind everyone that Joe's warning about not so highly educated people among Objectivists was originally address to me, as I have never left school since six year old and have been living in the academic ivory all my life! I must give Joe credit for his keen observation that must have detected the snob in me! And I sincerely appreciate his warning! He said it very well in his last post that to have an estimate on people's abilities and expertise is a very useful thing and can prevent you from wasting your time on futile arguments.

I just want to make one clarification though: yes, I am an academic scholar...in Biological Science, not Objectivism. In terms of Objectivism philosophy, I am nobody.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/28, 9:01pm)


Post 30

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 10:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
... yes, I am an academic scholar...in Biological Science, not Objectivism. In terms of Objectivism philosophy, I am nobody.

Well, I'd just like to take a moment to caution folks then; that not all scholars are tried-n-true Objectivists ...

;-)

Ed
[runs for cover; until the coast clears, anyway]


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Monday, January 29, 2007 - 12:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

Thanks for everything you said in post #28. You explained everything perfectly.

Also, I hope I didn't give anyone the impression that I didn't feel that education didn't matter. Educational literacy (or what E.D. Hirsch calls "Cultural Literacy"), i.e., the knowledge of the sorts of  things you mentioned, such as basic geography, world political systems, and so on, are vitally important, as well as the need to, (and I love this expression, Luke!) aggressively self-educate...something that truly active minds will find to be a necessary activity. I hope I did not come across as the "lack-of-a-college-degree-as-badge-of-honor/ I don't need no stinkin' college!" type. That has never been my sentiment, though I know many (Non-Objectivist) people who feel this way. (They're not friends of mine.)

And of course, I see now how varying degrees of education can pose a real problem at a conference in the situation you described, where a group discussion can never advance to the level it should because of a few newer people who can't grasp the discussion at that level. I had not thought of the possibility of this before you mentioned it; I've grown accustomed to life here on the forum. Newbies can ask questions in the appropriate forum (Q&A), and just quietly lurk and read along in the other forum threads where the material may be new or more difficult, and just not interfere in the discussion. How are the conference discussions presented? I assume that everyone is welcome to attend any meeting or discussion on the schedule.  But perhaps when they are announced, they should come with some sort of warning (there's that word again :-) that a particular discussion will be focused on issues requiring a command of basic biological principles, or physics, etc. People wouldn't be prevented from attending, but maybe they would get the drift that if they don't fully understand everything being said, it would actually be rude to interrupt, ask elementary questions and in effect, bog down the discussion for everyone else. Look...I, for one, promise not to wander into any discussions that are over my head (until such a time, of course, as I have self-educated myself to the correct level of understanding :-) but descriptions of the sessions made available to the attendees should probably be gently discouraging to those who really wouldn't benefit from them anyway, and would only ruin the experience for others.

Thanks again for the clearer explanation.

And for this quote, which I think is my favorite one out of that whole paragraph:



Objectivism doesn't demand that everyone be a hero, but it should never be used as an excuse not to move in that direction.  (Joe Rowlands)

Erica


Post 32

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 2:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, you are perceptive.  I did have you in mind, and was addressing you.

Erica, I didn't think your posts gave the impression that you felt education didn't matter.  I assumed you were commenting because of a possible implied snobbishness.  In fact, I sanction one of those posts.  But my reply couldn't simply say "Oh no...I didn't mean anything...it doesn't matter to me what kind of education you have".  I don't believe that's true.  And I also don't like the way some people will back away from objective standards in order to not hurt the feelings of others.  We have to focus on being objective.  So my reply wasn't just replying to your posts.  I was trying to elaborate on the overall position.

You asked how conference discussions are presented?  In conference, there are generally speeches, followed by a Q&A.  I'm not sure if it's just Objectivist conference, but the Q&A is usually pretty annoying.  You generally get people who decide to give their own theories, or long examples, or they just talk about their own topic.  When they finally get done talking, they remember they're supposed to ask a question, and say "What do you think of that?".  I think Q&A could in theory be useful, but it needs to be tightly moderated.  I find after the session is over, the really interesting questions and discussions begin.

These conferences don't really have the problems I mentioned.  There isn't usually an open roundtable where everyone is stuck listening to any one person (except during Q&A).  So conference work out pretty well, despite huge differences is knowledge in Objectivism or other topics.  The only downside I've seen is that it's sometimes difficult to give a speech to a general audience when many have very little common background.  If conferences are supposed to be about sharing your research and progress over the year, they're not really well suited for it.  If instead they're methods of providing classes at many levels, it seems to do the trick.

My bad experiences have been at local clubs.  Specifically, when the format is a roundtable discussion.  It's not just that the conversation is dragged down to the person with the least knowledge.  Actually, it often isn't.  Someone who just doesn't know much will keep quiet, much like lurking on a forum.  The real danger is the person who thinks they know what they're talking about, but doesn't.  They never shut up, and they have a captive audience.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 5:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe observed with my emphasis added:

My bad experiences have been at local clubs.  Specifically, when the format is a roundtable discussion.  It's not just that the conversation is dragged down to the person with the least knowledge.  Actually, it often isn't.  Someone who just doesn't know much will keep quiet, much like lurking on a forum.  The real danger is the person who thinks they know what they're talking about, but doesn't.  They never shut up, and they have a captive audience.

This is where the club leader or moderator needs to put his foot down and call the speaker on his nonsense.  This assumes the leader or moderator actually understands Objectivism well enough to do this effectively.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Sunday, February 4, 2007 - 7:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erica wrote:
No, he decided Objectivism was too ELITIST. That's it. That was his big turn off. He thought that the philosophy wasn't accessible to regular people, and that it only benefitted the kinds of prime movers featured in Rand's novels. I found myself in the position of having to try to explain that nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, I was not successful; he'd already closed down his mind to Rand, and didn't really feel like revisiting her. But I never forgot what he said, and how unfortunate it was that he had gotten that impression.
Anyone who labels Objectivism as "elitist" and "not accessible to regular people" needs to compare it against other philosophies and religions.  He would need to ask himself whether a "regular person" could even begin to grasp, without great effort, notions like:
  • dialectical materialism
  • the mystery of the Holy Trinity
  • the ultimate nature of God
  • the absolutely unknowable nature of "real" reality
  • linguistic analysis
  • etc.
I could list many others but you get the idea.  In fact, academics have long derided Objectivism for its alleged naivete about the nature of reality.  So which is it?  Is it so abstract that regular people cannot grasp it, or is it so naive that academics should dismiss it?  Or both?


Post 35

Sunday, February 4, 2007 - 7:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Depends on which side of the fence the other person is on.....;-)

Post 36

Sunday, February 4, 2007 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nice post, Luke. There is always going to be an elite. I think the unstated disatisfaction many critics have is with the kind of elite Rand wanted :-).

Jim


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Sunday, February 4, 2007 - 8:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

Naturally, I couldn't agree with you more. Ayn Rand, in my opinion, took philosophy, as a discipline,  from the ivory tower and instantly made it accessible to everyone.

Incidentally, I had another acquaintance who called Rand a "lightweight" philosophically;
he was a big John Stuart Mill fan, for whatever that's worth.
This person felt Rand had nothing important to offer, which, of course, always begged the question from me..."Then why the fuck hadn't anyone else ever offered what she did, the way she did?"
I apologize for the expletive, but the idea gets me steaming mad.

Another incidental: I knew another guy who stated, "Yeah, I dated a girl who was a Rand fanatic in high school, and I read Rand, and basically she just said what I already knew." Of course, this guy was, at the time he said this, in a miserable relationship with a wretched wife who worshipped her super liberal, Rand-hating, philosophy professor dad.
(They ended up divorcing...no surprise there.) I didn't have the intellectual tools to explain to this guy that he, in fact, didn't have a clue as to Rand's teachings, even if he thought he was impressing me by saying he did.)

These are my acquaintances, "friends", etc. Is it any wonder why I prefer to talk with people on a computer monitor (RoR, etc.)?

Erica


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.