RoR: Forum

Interesting. Its always good to have the measure of the communities you choose to associate with.

Post 1

Friday, August 28, 2009 - 5:08pm

I wonder what the results would be if you conducted a similar poll to this about liberals on Huffington Post?

Post 2

Friday, August 28, 2009 - 5:46pm

I voted "No better or worse," and then regretted it. Honestly, all of the Objectivists I know actually ARE better than most non-Objectivists I know. Far more stable, sane, and honest all around. I don't know what I was thinking.

Post 3

Friday, August 28, 2009 - 6:18pm

Teresa, I see that kind of error often... It arises when a good person exercises honesty, seeks to be objective and ends up overcompensating a little bit when ensuring their judgment isn't driven by an emotional bias :-)

Also, those who are virtuous will always have a hard time determining what part of their judgments of others isn't tainted by projecting virtue where it might not exist. (The reverse is the thief who is always worried others will steal their stuff).

Post 4

Friday, August 28, 2009 - 6:48pm

I'm just suprised by how many regular posters seem to have a terrible opinion of their own professed philosphy or simply don't see it as having value. The stealthy troll factor is suprising too, since I'm not seeing a lot of "This philosophy is total bullshit" or "Objectivism is irrelevant" posts, but apparently those are widely held beliefs on RoR.

Post 5

Friday, August 28, 2009 - 7:50pm

The stealthy troll factor is suprising too, since I'm not seeing a lot of "This philosophy is total bullshit" or "Objectivism is irrelevant" posts, but apparently those are widely held beliefs on RoR.

You mean the five votes for "worse character than non-Objectivists?" That surprizes me too. I never would have expected that, but we do have lurkers, individuals under moderation, and even a few who haven't fully integrated the discipline.

I won't hold my breath they'll be that courageous, but would anyone wish to explain their vote for the last option?

Post 6

Friday, August 28, 2009 - 8:49pm

I took the question not to mean "Is the philosophy consonant with good character?" but simply to mean, of people who describe themselves as Objectivists (not of professional Objectivists, or people I think are good Objectivists who actually understand and follow the philosophy properly, or of my Objectivist friends) in a random sample, are those people of good character? Based, in other words, not on a select sample of people I have chosen to meet or associate with (like Roger Bissell) but based simply on the people I have randomly met who have told me they were Objectivists. And, unfortunately, those people that I have met randomly through the years were for the most part like the asshole boyfriend in Dirty Dancing who got the girl pregnant but who refused to pay for her abortion, miserable self absorbed scumbags who see the philosophy as a justification for their (1) alienation and (2) feelings of superiority.

Post 7

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 2:54am

Even the "no better, no worse" was a little suprising. Why practice a philosophy that one believes is irrelevant to character building.

I suppose if I had interpreted it as Ted did, my assessment wouldn't have been quite so rosy. I took the question at face value. I suppose "Have most objectvists you met poorly integrated or actively evaded particular objectivist principles?" would have been an interesting lead in poll for this one.

Post 8

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 4:39am

And, unfortunately, those people that I have met randomly through the years were for the most part like the asshole boyfriend in Dirty Dancing who got the girl pregnant but who refused to pay for her abortion, miserable self absorbed scumbags who see the philosophy as a justification for their (1) alienation and (2) feelings of superiority.

I've never had much of a problem with people who appear "superior," or arrogant. That kind of thing just doesn't bother me, because I don't see it as a flaw.

Alienation is just another word for "lonely" in my vocabulary.

Post 9

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 5:45am

I took the question to refer to people who call themselves Objectivists but fail to integrate properly and, therefore, have a character on par with the general population.

So I selected "no better or worse than non-Objectivists."

Post 10

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 8:31am

The first Objectivist I ever met was my ninth grade English teacher. On the first day of class, she gave us a pop quiz. For some reason, my writing utensil was inadequate - I probably had a pencil with a broken tip, I don't remember. In any case, I asked to borrow a writing utensil from Rob, the kid next to me. He gave me his pen. After we handed in the quiz, she announced that Rob, who had lent me his pen, and several other students had earned zeroes. She theatrically ripped up and threw out their quizzes. She announced that they should have used pens (about which she had said nothing earlier) and that they had to learn their lesson. I raised my hand and told her to rip up my test, since I had used Rob's pen, and told her she should give him his grade, since he was prepared. She said it was his mistake to give away his pen, but that I had integrity. (I went to the principle later, and the quiz results were expunged.)

The following year was when I discovered Ayn Rand. The kid who introduced Virtue of Selfishness to me showed me the ninth-grade English teacher's personal ad in Philadelphia Magazine. She identified herself as an Objectivist. That went a long way toward explaining the specific forms of the tortures she put her students through. I suppose her favorite Rand essay must have been the Comprachicos.

Post 11

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 8:39am

I'm not even seeing the twisted logic in that one. Is there a passage I missed encouraging pen use? Was it a self-confidence thing, as in you have to trust yourself to get it right the first time? Weird.

I have to admit. I have never met a full on objectivist in person. I have a good friend who is close, but he stumbles on the religion angle.

Post 12

Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 1:59pm

That's just sick. I can't think of an Objectivist alive that I've ever met or spoken to who would subscribe to that kind of behaviour.

Post 13

Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 10:31am

Ted,

First impressions can be powerful. You know this and perhaps you merely wrote about your first impression of Objectivists (your virtue-challenged English teacher) for the rhetorical value it'd have on the reader -- but I have to assume that you wrote about it because it moved you rather than because it'd be moving to us. Beyond being your first glimpse of a weak association to Objectivism, she's nothing more than that. The intense feeling of betrayal you must've felt shouldn't be placed on Objectivism.

I'm joining a "secret society" soon. Before handing them the keys to my life I spent some leisure time with these guys. I found out a lot of things, not about the society -- but the people in it. I expected them to be moral-uprights and philosophers and serious high-fahlooters and whatnot. Imagine my surprise to find out that they're regular guys with regular faults and character flaws and the whole sheebang.

For a split-second, I was turned off by their obvious moral imperfections. Then I pulled back and went into hyper-analytic mode for a while. When I came out of my thought-cave I could see the light: I was suffering from what I call John Galt Syndrome -- expecting, or at least hoping, for perfection to automatically flow from system or society, instead of flowing from a person growing inside it.

You are too, if you ask me.

There are Democrats (and even Republicans now) who claim to be altruists. They largely use the concept of altruism for ulterior motives. As Rand said about it, altruism is a lie that can't actually be practiced, it can only be feigned (for either naive or sinister reasons). There are likely many folks who come across Objectivism who haven't yet put much work in character-building. Some may be drawn to it as a means to avoid character-building and somehow still get ahead in life by becoming a con-man (like most Democrat and Republican politicians). They may be the most vocal.

Or, in your case, the first impression.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that Objectivism is the most correct guideline for human life on earth. Think of a marathon. Anyone can slap on a number on their shirt and start the race and, in doing so, appear to be an athlete or athletic. Some of these folks will sit down as soon as they are out of sight of the crowd. Some may aimlessly turn around and start going the wrong way.

All this has nothing to do with the merit of marathon running, and takes nothing away from those who sincerely want to run the race. The race is just as right or important with the feigners and the stragglers and the mindless as it would be without them. Please consider the probability that your complaint applies to the people of our culture, not to the people of Objectivism -- numbers on their shirts or not. Just look around here. We have moral marathoners here. A higher concentration than I've seen anywhere else -- even than in secret societies.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/30, 10:57am)

Post 14

Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 11:28am

I wrote that response because Teresa asked.

I think character is prior to philosophy. I am who I was before I encountered Objectivism. I adopted it because it made explicit what I already held implicitly. It's benefit is not that it makes people better, but that it justifies their goodness to them. Remember, Galt didn't go around converting the bad people, the ones he approached were already of good character.

I am certainly not in the group that thinks there is anything wrong with the philosophy itself, nor do I think it is at all useless. It is like a bra, it helps you maintain the figure that you have. It supports your assets. And children raised in a rational egoist culture will develop better characters.

There is no hidden message behind what I wrote. I can also think of several "Objectivists" I met in college who resembled my English teacher, and my 1980's encounter with Harry Binswanger was far from happy.

Let's hear from the other "evil" voters.

Post 15

Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 12:44pm

Okay, Ted.

Fair enough, but let me ask you something that will seem like naked arrogance to the envious or the mental/moral dropouts reading this:

Have you ever seen a group of folks as moral as we are here?

Ed

Post 16

Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 1:58pm

Within the context of their understanding of morals, yes...
[remember, the moral is the UNDERSTOOD, not the commanded]

Post 17

Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 2:52pm

"Have you ever seen a group of folks as moral as we are here?"

Eating dinner with my parents and cleaning a restaurant kitchen with illegal immigrants.

Post 18

Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 4:02pm

Ted,

You said, "I think character is prior to philosophy. I am who I was before I encountered Objectivism."

Yes, character is prior to philosophy, but then character evolves in ways that are affected by the ideas that you have taken in, and the philosophy you live by. We change. Our actions have effects that become causes of future effects. It is a reciprocal causality - like self-esteem. The higher your self-esteem, the more you are likely to act with integrity. And, the more you act with integrity, the higher your self-esteem.

Much of our character forms in childhood - we are setup to take in that kind of learning and development then... but we are capable of character development, even significant change throughout life.

Post 19

Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 5:38pm