Do I qualify to be an Objectivist
Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
I joined this site because I shared a thought process with Ayn Rand. long before I read Atlas Shrugged I was quite aware of the lack of logic that was raining down in our society. Logically I wondered how do people come to such opposing views of the world around them? The conclusion is there are people that use their emotions as their guide more than logic.. Do all people have the ability to look at every subject without emotion? No. What is the purpose of our emotional side? I suppose it aids in the survival of our species because without it we would drifting through life alone focused only on our own survival. Our spouses would only serve to satisfy a momentary purpose. Our children would be a drain on our resources. Our parents would eventually become useless to us so we could leave them if they were injured or ill.
I believe in God and if I debate you on this matter I will point to many emotional as well as logical reasons. Does this mean I am not an Objecitivist? I was an Objectivist long before I knew anything about Atlas Shrugged I was looking at the world and evaluating it based on logical conclusions for a long time. Was I supposed to take the Oath before I slapped down my $4.00 a month? I wouldn’t because I have a child that may depends on me for the rest of his/her life or mine. Everyone does not reach the same conclusion about every topic discussed on this site are they supposed to? Do they have to reach all of the same conclusions as Ayn Rand?
God. I paid my $4.00. to engage in Objective debate not subjective debate. Two people can reach very different conclusions on the same
I believe in God and if I debate you on this matter I will point to many emotional as well as logical reasons. Does this mean I am not an Objecitivist? I was an Objectivist long before I knew anything about Atlas Shrugged I was looking at the world and evaluating it based on logical conclusions for a long time. Was I supposed to take the Oath before I slapped down my $4.00 a month? I wouldn’t because I have a child that may depends on me for the rest of his/her life or mine. Everyone does not reach the same conclusion about every topic discussed on this site are they supposed to? Do they have to reach all of the same conclusions as Ayn Rand?
God. I paid my $4.00. to engage in Objective debate not subjective debate. Two people can reach very different conclusions on the same
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
For me, that doesn't sound interesting, it sounds repetitive and mirror imaging.
I've read what you have written several times, and the only things I know about how [& what] you think is you believe in God, and you say you are an objectivist. You also point out that decisions can be based on emotion or reason.
Okaaaaay.
On what do you base your assertion [I think} that no one on the site thinks like you do?
and [this should be first, of course - defining the terms} do you mean "comes to the same conclusion" or "follows the same path to a conclusion which may or may not be the same"?
Most specifically, to what do you refer in your assertion that you don't think like I do? We have not interacted, as far as I remember.
Sorry if I'm missing the obvious, but I really do not understand your plaint, and I would like to.
Akston says, of John, Francisco & Ragnar "I am proud of their every action, of their every goal – and of every value they’ve chosen.”
Mulligan & Akston ask the 3 about their plans for the next year. When John says he doesn’t know if he’ll be returning to NYC, they object, plead, ask his reasons, try to convince him not to return because it’s dangerous.
When Ragnar comes to John’s house, after Dagny’s first night in the Gulch, John is clearly concerned about what has [or hasn’t] happened to him: “ Lost any men? Lost any of your time? Lost any battles?”
then, a few moments later, when Ragnar is telling John about his trip to the Gulch, he says to Dagny: “I’m used to objections….None of them approve of my particular method of fighting our battle. John doesn't, Dr. Akston doesn't."
But I could not find a place in which Akston, John or Frisco THEMSELVES say they do not agree with Ragnar's methods.
I've been consulting my dust-jacketed copy of AS so much that the dust jacket has finally torn -repairs ahead, I earned those tears and I'm keeping it!
An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand.
What about a man who does act on his emotions, the ones he does understand, regardless of the irrationality?
She is wrong to say a rational man doesn't act on his emotions, unless of course she was speaking of a man who doesn't exist.