[Ask the Gulch] Is the Gulch a place where the curious can come to learn more about Objectivism or should visitors and subscribers only be here if they are already well versed? I frequently see texts from people telling others they don't belong here.
Posted by BenFrank 8 years, 7 months ago to Ask the Gulch
However, this is not a free for all. If you want that, go to Breitbart or Huffington Post.
As Db put it the other day, I do not learn anything about physics talking to astrologers. Same applies on this site.
This is my suggestion, not everyone will agree. Asking questions, if you are uncertain what O point of view is, is a great way to learn more, if that is your goal. If you want to argue against an Objectivist position or Rand, then be upfront. Failure is to consistently here to undermine Objectivist principles, means you should probably go somewhere else. There are many here (religionists for one) who disagree with Rand on concepts. They are open about this and state their principles upfront. I admire that. There are others who have been on the site for months/a year-more who do not make plain where they disagree. They just argue. They do not want to increase their knowledge. That's ok, but they'll get called out. A is A. You will experience dissonance on this site all the time. :) I am thinking of the other day when jbrenner told me to re-read AS. At first I was indignant and then I had to laugh at myself. Yes. I need to re-read Atlas Shrugged. Yes. and so, I started again last night. I'll let you know how it's going :)
My daughter has goaded me into a reread, as she is rereading herself. :)
On a positive note, my dad saw my WIJG bumper sticker and asked. It was a pleasure to explain to him WIJG. At the end, he said, "Wow." Before his Alzheimer's disease, I am sure we would have had more of a conversation, but it was pleasant to explain to my father WIJG. After all, my father taught me the principles of Objectivism without ever having read any of AR's books. He has lived them all his life.
who are my father 's age, I have gone my whole life not knowing until this site.
which closely paralleled Rand. . he was a tough one. -- j
.
I must admit I'm a bit envious. The only time my father was aware of me was when I screwed up in his eyes. However, that turned out to be just one more mountain to conquer going along the trip that's life. It did teach me how to treat my boys by doing the opposite of what my dad did.
when the stock market crashed) and could squeeze a nickel
to yield at least eight pennies. . carried papers in a model T
which cost him seven and a half dollars, to help to keep
bread on the table at home. . got a field promotion to
LtCol in the Phillippines in ww2 at about age 26 .......
made me appreciate life in a way which endures to this day,
the no-BS view which Rand finished teaching me.
and when I screwed up, I caught hell. -- j
.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
In response, I've pointed out my belief that there is not anyone on this planet that I would 100% agree with about all things.
I'd also like to point out my doubt that Ms. Rand would want anyone marching lock step behind her or anyone else.
Up until four years ago I never of Ayn Rand. I love how she thinks, despite not 100% agreeing with her.
I also learn all kinds of stuff here and have a lot of kindred spirits politically.
And I do love to express myself when moved to do so. No one has to agree with me either.
I am dino--
Hear me roar!
Or just don't read the allosaur.
Nyah! Nyah! Nayh!
There is certainly a lot of room in the Gulch pertaining to the Second.
If there was one thing Ayn Rand loved, it was freedom.
a little? . did she seem unfriendly or what? -- j
.
to be precise in their thinking. . it kinda comes with the territory
when you're in a crowd of strangers, I believe. . Thanks Much
for the explanation!!! -- j
.
On the other hand, I have not studied Objectivism in depth, and don't consider myself to be an expert in any sense, so I am probably similar to many of the people in the virtual Gulch.
My observation has been that there are comments made in the Gulch that are anti-Rand and anti-Objectivist. Some are on purpose,many are due to a lack of knowledge or having thought something through. And I have seen comments saying, "you don't belong here", but the only time I have seen those comments are when the previous commenter is being deliberately obtuse or Anti- Rand.
So my very long answer to your question is that all fans of Rand and her literature and thinking are welcome here, no matter their level of knowledge. If only the well versed belonged here, I would not belong here, and I have not only learned a lot and had a lot of smiles and fun, I have been made very welcome.
Whew! I am usually concise!
a month, and the interchanges lately have been sparky........
in places.
Ben! . You Belong Here! . Your Contributions Are Appreciated Here!
Please Stick Around, OK??? -- john
.
equestriennes and cowboys here -- and they will all contribute
to your growth. . I spent 23 years in school and still learn something
every time I visit here. . Enjoy, Ben!!! -- john
.
Like any internet forum though, be certain about the source, before you believe what they say. This is not a straight up reference site for Objectivism, but you will see reference to those sites.
Just remember, it is the internet, so their will be bad to go with the good in here.
But having said that, it is a site for reasoned and rational discussion, and even argument. At the same time, it is not a site of members that appreciate unreasoned or irrational attacks and responses, and such will be pointed out.
That said you don't have to be an expert by any means.
This morning I called a Richmond Saturday radio
talk show, because there was something on it a-
bout Trump and Oreos. And I said that I thought
the Oreo company and other such companies were doing what the businessmen did in "At-
las Shrugged". It was a short comment, and so
I got on. (I think that that screener doesn't usu-
ally put me on because he's afraid I'm going to
promote Ayn Rand, but this comment got on be-
cause it was relatively short).
In order for this to be a useful forum for discussing ideas there have to be some very broad rules. This is no different than any rational forum. For instance, if this site was about Euclidean geometry, you could not come in and discuss ideas that did not follow logically - on purpose, or ideas where two parallel lines intersect. The same is true here .
The point of Objectivism is to identify Reality - plain, old reality - without all the trappings imposed by our viewpoints and rose-colored glasses.
The real Objectivist is one who is willing to revisit ANY concept or premise without hesitation. Such is the scientific method. And if there is a lack of proof for a particular viewpoint, the Objectivist will acknowledge such, but then refuse to be content.
The key to knowledge is to like Einstein acknowledge how much still there is to know and not to presume that anything is an open and shut case.
Zeus' Electrified Nads! What does "without all the trappings imposed by our viewpoints and rose-colored glasses" mean?
Are there points of agreement upon which any debate may begin? Absolutely. And we should take advantage of these opportunities for mutual agreement. But if a question of logic arises, one must be willing to drive down the chain of logic and reason to define the point at which a divergence of opinion arises and acknowledge it. No reconciliation of opposing viewpoints can or should be expected until such happens. And again, this requires both to review their respective premises. That two people have come to opposing conclusions on any matter is the result of incomplete understanding. It takes _two willing minds more interested in the truth than ideology, however, to pursue the matter.
"Identifying that which exists is our only "solid point of reference"."
I agree, but all identification is only as good as 1) our tools and 2) our application of such. If we are not willing to examine the proper application of either of these, what we are actually claiming is that both our tooling and our application of such are infallible. I don't know about you, but I'm unwilling to make that claim.
The game I want to avoid playing is the game of assumptions arising from inherent bias. This is where one must question one's self and admit where bias may come into play, and that it may come into play either ignorantly due to a lack of knowledge (i.e. imperfect measurements or imperfect inferences) or also as a result of the willful choice. Of particular concern are these second instances.
I am not advocating that any discussion start with the definition that 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2. What I am advocating for is that when any particular assumption is challenged by an alternate point of view, that the scientist will go back and walk through their assumptions until the point of divergence is identified and attempt to see if the divergence is justified without assuming that the original inference was correct.
record for this post, as they enter the site:::
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
if this were the intro, we would have more eager participants,
I betcha!!! -- j
.
Glad you are here. I am pretty well versed, having read almost everything Rand over the years, but I am always learning more. I also do not posses a photographic memory, so I am always re-learning. It is my pleasure to share what I have retained. As far as I am concerned, all that is required is an inquiring, open mind and common courtesy.
Welcome to the Gulch and don't be discouraged.
Good blog. You have received many good comments.
Respectfully,
O.A.
For more information read books, quotes, videos, by Lysander Spooner, Larken Rose, Adam Kokesh, Murry Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, etc.
One of the hardest lessons is when to admit to yourself "I could be wrong" For that we offer Rand's primary dictum. When the answer is in error check your premises. One or more of them will be wrong.