"The total passion for the total height"
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 2 users and 12 guests online.
Online usersPollElection 2008: Who Will Win? Obama by a landslide 12% McCain by a landslide 22% Obama comfortably 14% McCain comfortably 22% Either narrowly 30% Total votes: 50
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
My Limited Experience with Objectivist Literature Submitted by NickOtani on Tue, 2007-09-04 03:50.
I remember first being introduced to Ayn Rand literature in 1969, after returning from Vietnam and my military enlistment and attending SpokaneFallsCommunity College on the G.I. Bill. I was taking a speech class and saw another student get up and talk very confidently about values and principles and living for himself, not subjugating himself to God or country or anything but his own selfish interests. This did provoke me, and I made a point of meeting this student and talking with him after class. We became friends, and he loaned me a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness and asked me to read it. He said we could discuss it after I read it. This was my first exposure to an atheistic ethics, and I was intrigued by it. I could see by the style of writing that it was conducive to quoting in speeches. One could turn to almost any page and read any paragraph and find something profound and provocative. And, this was a popular style in the late sixties and early seventies. It was the style of political radicals. It was the style of the Chicago Seven and the Black Panthers. It was passionate and full of punch. Now, people say it is too emotional, but there should be emotion in statements about war and racism. It’s a sort of call for action. I started thinking that perhaps this whole notion of helping others as the definition of being moral was a historical mistake, brought on by evil Christians and other religious people who said man is evil by nature and must deny himself. Many philosophers and scholars, after that, also made a big deal out of putting other people first, not being selfish. Hobbes talked about man’s selfishness and how he needed to be socialized to stay out of trouble. Freud talked about man’s selfish, irrational id, which must be controlled by socialization, by the ego and super-ego. Marx and Communism talked about the evil individualists, bourgeois, in capitalistic countries who were selfish and evil, and Tolstoy promoted a radical socialism, condemning the selfish, inauthentic materialism of people like Ivan Illych. Rand was the first person I saw who said it is okay to be selfish and proud, and this made sense to me. We wouldn’t survive for long if we never satisfied our own desires for food and comfort, putting every other needy person first. Yes, there were those I wanted to help, but Rand didn’t say I couldn’t. It is also selfish to help those one selfishly wants to help. And, being selfish, to her, did not mean stepping on the backs of others to get what one wants only on the range of a moment. It is not like pushing other people out of the way to get first on the lifeboat when the ship is sinking. It is respecting the rights of others to also pursue happiness, as Locke and Jefferson said. This is what turned me against the Boy Scout oath, which talked of duty to God and country. My duty was to myself, to pursue happiness, and my country had a duty to me, according to the Declaration of Independence, to protect my right to pursue happiness, to be concerned with my own interests. Well, my friend and I had many conversations about issues in the articles by Rand and Nathaniel Branden in The Virtue of Selfishness, but then I went on to other books. I read the fiction books next The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, Anthem, and Night of January 16th. They were a little easier to read than the essays. They appealed to ordinary people, not just scholars and intellectuals. And I could relate to some of the characters. Howard Roark was experiencing discrimination in college and in the business world by people who disagreed with his style. I knew what it was like to be judged and treated unfairly. I was a half-Japanese boy in a predominately white middle- class neighborhood. Some people seemed to hate me for no reason, just because I was young and perhaps a little different. This was the late sixties and early seventies when there was culture clash between young people and older adults. It was the age of the original Woodstock and, most older adults had the attitude that Rand expressed, in The Romantic Manifesto, that the kids of Woodstock were dirty and uncivilized compared to the scientists who put men on the moon etc. Well, some of us kids, who were protesting against the war, experienced the same kind of disapproval from “patriotic” adults as did Howard Roark from established “experts” in architecture. Roark showed us how to stand our ground, to have integrity, even against judgmental people like Rand, herself. Atlas Shrugged was a bulky book of more than a thousand pages of fine print. And, some people complained that it went on and on making the same point over and over again, insulting the intelligence of its readers. It probably did. That long radio speech at the end was way too long. However, I did see well illustrated scenarios which captured the evils of “from each according to his ability to each according to his need.” I saw why Rand hated collectivism and altruism and relativism etc. I saw her utopian ideal. I learned about capitalism and money and how irrational concerns get in the way of progress. It was worth wading through. This was not the first time I read a thick novel. I’d read books by Hemingway and Steinbeck and others. Rand’s novels were a little more like the “Hopalong Cassidy” book found in Gatsby’s belongings. It was romantic literature, where the heroes were challenged but prevailed in the end. This was what she was trying to accomplish, rather than presenting us with rounded characters with flaws and who are not always successful. People have criticized Rand for this, but she has always maintained that her heroes do exist. They are people like she and Branden, about whom she later changed her mind. Most Randians consider We the Living to be Rand’s least well-written book, but I liked it. It had a sad ending and made me cry. It was more like something written by Hemingway or Steinbeck than by Rand, whose heroes usually overcome the obstacles and live happily ever after. I relived Rand’s fiction by reading For the New Intellectual, and I got a brief outline of history in her opening essay, the Attila and the Witch Doctor metaphor applied to different people and influences at different times in history. Kant may be a sort of Attila and religious people might be the Witch Doctors, or the Witch doctors may be the Platos, Kants and religious leaders who turn us away from reason and try to convince us to find answers in some supernatural realm. The Attilas are those who can’t think for themselves and turn to those Witch doctors for guidance. It’s a challenge to the new intellectuals to take back power from the Witch Doctors and save America. I also read Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal and got more ammunition for arguing economics. I haven’t seen that book for awhile now, but I remember seeing articles by Alan Greenspan, who was once one of Rand’s inner circle. And, I read The Objectivist Epistemology. I keep going back over this book because of the philosophical content and the issue of universals. One of my rare books about Rand is a hard cover version of Who is Ayn Rand?, by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, from back in the days when they still liked each other. I found it in a second hand book store, and I’ll cherish this little possession. As I went through college, I was on the debate and forensic team. I put together oral interpretations from Rand’s material which, as I said, lent itself well to quoting and speech making. I did the “I” speech from Anthem and the “Original sin” quote from Atlas Shrugged. They went over well, even if they did anger some religious people who still considered altruism the same as morality. Well, it was after this that I went to Germany and worked as a teacher and argued philosophy with other colleagues. I took courses toward my master’s in education and met Mahroo, whom I’ve talked about in another post, and I met William F. O’Neill, PhD., who wrote With Charity Toward None, an Analysis of Ayn Rand’s Philosophy. I read his book and tried to debate with him a little about Rand’s philosophy, but he was dismissive and superior, as most professors are, but I am glad to have met him and discussed Rand with him. It was also from him that it was confirmed to me that Rand and the Branden’s had a falling out due to this sexual relationship. (Randites all know the details now from both Nathaniel’s Biography, Judgment Day and Barbara’s Biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand. I also read both of those books and saw how Rand was a bit too narrow and judgmental and easily offended by anyone who disagreed with her.) I had to break free from Rand a little just to see what was happening in the rest of the world. If someone reads all of Rand’s material but never reads Kant or Plato or Hegel or any of those other people about whom Rand and Peikoff denounce, I don’t think they can really understand Rand. I did read other philosophers, and I read Philosophy: Who Needs It and Peikoff’s book, The Ominous Parallels. I also saw Rand on the Phil Donahoe show. I heard references to her on television and in movies. This was all still before computers were popular and ubiquitous. For a while, I didn’t see any Rand books anymore. She died. I did see chapters in books about her. I read a chapter in a book about existentialism. I read about her in a book about strange beliefs. Then, I started seeing the books put out by Peikoff, The Early Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Lexicon, and Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. These are the most recent books I’ve purchased and read, but I also read, now that I have a computer, the online versions of The Logical Structure of Objectivism, by David Kelley and William Thomas, and several other things only available online. Still, according to William Thomas, the Atlas Society Graduate Scholarship Committee is not convinced that I have had enough exposure to Objectivist literature or Objectivist philosophical literature to meet their needs. I feel a little like I am Michael Jordan hearing someone tell me I can’t play basketball very well. He recommends that I attend one of their training sessions. I’m getting the impression that they are more concerned with taking money off of me than in helping me with a scholarship. What do you all think? Do I have enough familiarity with Objectivist philosophical literature to qualify as a scholarship candidate? Is the judgment of the Scholarship Committee objective? Is my feeling that I have been misjudged non-objective? Bis bald, Nick
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
The Judo Thread
You ever gonna do a thread on Judo? Seriously I'd respond respectfully with things other than snide one-liners and everything.
---Landon
It's done. It's in the General Forum.
bis bald,
Nick
All other things aside
You ever gonna do a thread on Judo? Seriously I'd respond respectfully with things other than snide one-liners and everything.
---Landon
Inking is sexy.
http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes
Not conversationally
I do know some Japanese words. I've taken Judo for most of my life and know some Karate. I know the names of throws and the different commands and phrases we use in the rituals and such, but I'd have a hard time getting directions to the Dojo or talking philosophy with someone who speaks only Japanese.
It's like when fencing students or Ballet students have to learn some French to practice their art, but they can't claim then to speak French like the French do.
bis bald,
Nick
Do
you speak Japanese as well?
Speak Engrish man!
Sorry, I speak English and German, not Engrish.
bis bald,
Nick
Huh?
"Well, in your case, I'd have to say your insults and derision have been very mature and reasoned proofs that what I've said is incorrect."
Speak Engrish man!
"Get fucked Otani" If you are offering, you should be nicer
The only way you could honestly make this statement is to hold the opinion that WE haven't been reasonable or forthcoming with reasoned proofs.
Well, in your case, I'd have to say your insults and derision have been very mature and reasoned proofs that what I've said is incorrect.
bis bald,
Nick
I didn't get past this line:
"I am trying to criticize Rand in a responsible way, with reasoning and evidence. I’d like others to criticize me this way as well."
The only way you could honestly make this statement is to hold the opinion that WE haven't been reasonable or forthcoming with reasoned proofs.
No more haikus. Get fucked Otani.
Lindsay
I don't count myself as "orthodox" since I can't stand the anal-retentiveness of the orthodoxy, nor its paranoid fear of open discussion. But you surely must realise there is no such thing as your "own version of Objectivism"? Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy, and it's not for you or anyone to hijack. If you have a different philosophy you should call it something else. David Kelley knows that, as you will see if you read his summary of what he considers fundamental, rather than incidental, to Objectivism. From what I've read of what you've written here, you depart from the fundamentals, so I'm not surprised your application for a scholarship has been declined by KASSless. It's reassuring to know they do have some quality control.
I usually stress that I am not an Objectivist. I call myself a Neo-Objectivist. In fact, I usually preface it with my name, a NickOtani’sNeo-Objectivist. There are other Neo-Objectivists out there, and I want to distinguish myself from them. I do think much of what Rand held was worthy. I like her stand on egoism, atheism, and natural rights. However, I do think she has problems with free-will and her theory of knowledge. I think it can be corrected with existentialism in the way presented it in my Alice series. Yes, I know Rand would hate that, as would anal-retentive Objectivists, but I’m looking for those who would be willing to discuss it and debate it, not slam the door on it or deride it or take periodic pot shots at it and then leave. I am trying to criticize Rand in a responsible way, with reasoning and evidence. I’d like others to criticize me this way as well.
Objectivism has been around even before Rand. It simply means the view that reality is independent of thought or consciousness and discovered, not created. She is associated with this philosophy now, but she doesn’t own the term any more than Mill owns Utilitarianism. Nathaniel Branden wrote an essay about who owns Objectivism, and he does not think it is exclusively Ayn Rand’s philosophy since she took some of it from him. Anyway, she doesn’t have a copyright on the use of the term, and she certainly doesn’t have a copyright on use of the term NickOtani’sNeo-Objectivism. I do think she is worth referring to in my philosophy, since some of her views are known well enough that they help in describing my views, but I try to respect her view that anyone who disagrees with her is not an Objectivist. I am not an Objectivist. I am a NickOtani’sNeo-Objectivist. I think that there is some reality independent of consciousness, but there is also room, within those objective parameters, for freedom, for existential creation of man’s nature. And, I am not hijacking Rand’s philosophy. I am indicating that my new philosophy is derived from it.
William Thomas gave, as his reason for not choosing me, the excuse that the committee did not think I have enough exposure to Objectivist literature and Objectivist philosophical literature. He did not say I was not Objectivist enough. He suggested that I come to some of the seminars. I would have been glad to do so had I been chosen for the scholarship. However, I got the impression he was more concerned with taking money off me than in advancing Objectivism by awarding me with a scholarship. I don’t think many people in the world have more exposure to Objectivist literature than I.
Much of what I've skimmed here from you fair reeks of Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, and you don't seem to realise it.
That’s the problem. You only skim over what I write, make some quick comment, and then leave. You said in another place that I was an intrinsicist. This was totally false. Here, you say I don’t seem to realize that I accept the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy. I do realize it. You really don’t know enough about me or my philosophy to judge, but you pop in, say something, and then leave. This is not discussion and debate.
Your philosophy is not Objectivism, "neo" or any other kind. Call it "Otanism" or something if you will, but Objectivism it ain't. I don't mind your posting here since some young newbie SOLOists are obviously finding you a useful foil, enabling them to clarify their positions and refine their arguments. That's great.
But please don't post in bold. It gives me epilepsy.
This is your board, and I will not challenge your leadership of it, as MSK accuses me of doing with him on his board, but I think I will decide for myself what I call my philosophy, whether you like it or not.
Bis bald,
Nick
Jameson...
Actually I had noticed that. Maybe if Nick debated topics on other peoples terms every now and again there wouldn't be so much animosity between him and certain other SOLOists.
Just a thought Nick.
Have you noticed
the Otanivist never posts on any of our threads?
I guess none of us are nearly as fascinating to him as he is to himself...
Mmmm, I feel a haiku coming on…
Haiku for Nick #7
yogi bare
what’s that stuck in his navel?
logic fuzz?
or maybe it’s only flint
"Nothing complicated about
"Nothing complicated about it at all, and nothing to do with heterosexuality, which after all is frightfully, disastrously orthodox, unfortunate and suboptimal."
You appear to have dropped your hat sir. I shall now take umbrage and flounce!
"Hetrodox"
Is a mis-spelling of "heterodox," which means unorthodox. Nothing complicated about it at all, and nothing to do with heterosexuality, which after all is frightfully, disastrously orthodox, unfortunate and suboptimal.
Linz
Ha
ha ..."Otanism"
..gosh..that sounds so funny.
I know I am going to regret asking Nicko Tani this, but...what does 'Hetrodox' mean?
Ha, Matt!
Wasn't your formatting but Nick's, which goes on para after para in bold. All too much for an old-fart white girl.
And I adore excessive personalities.
Sorry Linz...
If I had known my formatting was going to give you a seizure I would have stopped at italics. I guess I just have an excessive personality.
Nick
I don't count myself as "orthodox" since I can't stand the anal-retentiveness of the orthodoxy, nor its paranoid fear of open discussion. But you surely must realise there is no such thing as your "own version of Objectivism"? Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy, and it's not for you or anyone to hijack. If you have a different philosophy you should call it something else. David Kelley knows that, as you will see if you read his summary of what he considers fundamental, rather than incidental, to Objectivism. From what I've read of what you've written here, you depart from the fundamentals, so I'm not surprised your application for a scholarship has been declined by KASSless. It's reassuring to know they do have some quality control. Much of what I've skimmed here from you fair reeks of Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, and you don't seem to realise it.
Your philosophy is not Objectivism, "neo" or any other kind. Call it "Otanism" or something if you will, but Objectivism it ain't. I don't mind your posting here since some young newbie SOLOists are obviously finding you a useful foil, enabling them to clarify their positions and refine their arguments. That's great.
But please don't post in bold. It gives me epilepsy.
Linz
Hey Matt
Thanks for your comment.
Yes, I suspect that my Neo-Objectivism deviates too much from pure, orthodox Objectivism, even hetrodox Objectivism. I was just hoping that The Objectivist Center/Atlas Society would be liberal and tolerant enough to accept my version. I know that the Ayn Rand Institute would object to it. I know Ayn Rand, herself, would reject it. I was just hoping that David Kelley would understand.
Well, maybe I just have to keep going with my own version of Objectivism and someday have my own movement with a scholarship offering.
bis bald,
Nick
Hey Nick.
Ok, small disclaimer: I did not read all of your post. I'm Dyslexic and consequentially a slow (though thankfully comprehensive) reader. I skimmed the post so I think I get the jist but forgive me if my response seems half baked.
I think the problem here is that the Atlas Society is looking for down right advocates of objectivism to give Scholarships to. While you've obviously put a lot of thought in to philosophy and have ultimately decided to classify yourself as an Objectivist, you’re not an Objectivist in the same way that Ayn Rand was an Objectivist or that Karl Marx was a Communist or that Hitler was a Nazi, so on and so on. You seem to merely sympathies with Objectivism. You may sympathies strongly but the way I'm guessing they see it is that you question some of Objectivism’s fundamental cornerstones too much to be considered an advocate let alone an advocate worthy of their sponsorship.
I'm not really criticizing you in that either. I'm here as more of a sympathizer than a comrade (at this point I'd define myself as Libertarian-Humanist more than an Objectivist) but Looking over your posts about logic and reason and Agnosticism I do find the fact that you run a site called 'Nick Otani’s Neo-Objectivism' very peculiar. You yourself seem to be a political Agnostic.
Is it really so unreasonable that an organization with the primary goal of furthering the Objectivist cause is reluctant to throw money at you?