Why The Gulch?
I heard a talking head on the radio say something to the effect that most people who write to blogs do so in order to communicate with people who think as they do. Is this the only reason to be in Galt's Gulch? Not for me. I have learned a lot, and I thought that I knew everything there was to know about Objectivism. I have had my opinions broadened, some of my premises corrected and some askew ideas straightened. On the other hand, I hope that I have contributed and added to the insights of other "Gulchers." What say all of you? Is the Gulch just a way to blow off steam or do you have other reasons for entering?
There are not a lot of place where all freedoms are considered valuable, and wise people bother to put logic behind their beliefs.
ThanksGluching might be more important to me than Thanksgiving!
If Grandpa Sherman heard you say that, he'd say, "Vat...are you cucu? You need a psycho guy to look inside your head. You know vat he'd find? CHICKEN FAT!
(I once heard him say something like that to some jerk putting down the USA.
I've been waiting years for the opportunity to put that in writing.)
If it ever becomes just a like thinking community, I'll leave. Given the likes of the inhabitants of the Gulch, that ain't gonna happen.
If that is to mean having all Objectivists, then I am disagreeing.
So.. you mean you doubt if you'd find any left leaning posts on this site.
Just look back to what mminnick said.
I for one applaud your contributions.
As you discuss and debate, you grow. Even those times when you think the other person is crazy, it becomes a learning experience. Often when newbies attend the Gulch I find expressions that are so awful that I know they won't be here for long once they "get-it.' Yet they illuminate how way off course people can get when trying to grasp even the simplest of concepts. The concept of Altruism, for example seems to drive people utterly bonkers when I express to them my thoughts on it. I mistakenly posted discussing religion and philosophy. Each time I did I would open a jumbo can of worms which pasted over what could be some interesting thoughts.
A year ago I was just finishing reading Atlas Shrugged to my wife. The book was an enlightening experience for both of us. I finally felt an understanding to what was happening to our country.
I was seeking more Ayn Rand and read a few more of her books. Then I watched some old interviews of her. One day I stumbled into Galts Gulch much like Dagny I was chasing a lead.
After briefly lurking , I joined. I don't join groups.
I am thankful to learn ,share and I feel a connection to so many ethically self interested people who have the kind of curtious dialog and sound ideas that will propel a true advancement in our society. Thanks Herb for enriching and contributing to my growth!
You have expressed several of the reasons why many of us stay on and enjoy the Gulch.
So what are we to do now? The price of "shrugging" is essentially to withdraw from the benefits of our society. But we only have one life, and it seems a shame to just withdraw and eventually die while the socialists like Obama take advantage of our work and have a great life.
This is a real quandry of life in the USA currently. I find myself 'wanting' to buy less and make less to avoid the taxation.
I am encouraged that Trump won over the evil witch Hildebeast to give me a little more time to enjoy life and perhaps slow down the spread of socialism. What I want to do is withdraw from our current society but I dont want to give up all the advantages of it that are still there. Definite problem...
I too have learned a lot and treasure each one's knowledge and expertise.
I also, hope that I have contributed as well.
We are all hear to learn new things and new ways of understanding what it is to be objective.
It would be very boring otherwise.
You're willing to learn and that's a great function of this site. One even learns when some issue is not settled one way or another.
.
Thanks John, and excuse the self deprecation. AR would probably kick me under the table.
and share a celebratory drink with you at the table! -- j
.
also, Herb!! -- j
.
In the 1960 Presidential election, Kennedy won by about one vote per precinct across all precincts. That is no longer the case.
A similar perspective comes from Bowling Alone. We used to socialize with people who disagreed with us on politics, mostly because we did not discuss politics (or religion). Now, those recreational groups are less common than they were a generation ago.
While it is true that we have discussions, debates, and disagreements here, those are all within a narrow context. I took some flak here for saying that some of my best friends have been communists. (If you do not understand that, you probably have not read We the Living.) Overall, we tend not to get too far afield.
The fact is that civilization and capitalism were possible expressly because of the diversity of the city. The willingness to socialize outside of the tribe, indeed, to abandon the native tribe and enter a fluid and dynamic social environment, is the mark of a self-defined individual.
Like with the Bible, some take the parts of Objectivism that fit their lives and try to rationalize away the rest. Just goes to show that no two humans have the same mental content and must wing it the best they can but will quickly forget rational thought in small ways when the going gets tough.
Like minded here means liking Rand's work with a hope for it someday bringing a more rational future.
The fact that Rand had an absolute dislike of the idea of a supernatural did not keep her from making her followers into near religious believers of her ideas along with fear of being purged unless they had therapy from Brandon for wrong thinking.
I do not use Objectivism as a filler for my 76 years as an atheist. I value Objectivism because most of it makes sense but I have never accepted it as the last word in philosophy.
I knew that my original reply would get at least one gut reaction like yours. I did not intend to drive anyone away from an excellent philosophy but to give a warning about one branch being closed to any errors. No one is trying to take Objectivism away from its creator or her estate but only to question it an add to it.
The most important statements by Rand, to me, are about metaphysics and epistemology and especially to "check your premises."
She defines mathematics too narrowly, but seems to implicitly recognize that definitions use many types of relationships (as when she spoke of the measurement of love) as a science of measurement when it is much more a conceptual science of relationships, both about objective reality and concepts as the mental existents' relationships within the brain which can just be consistently defined concepts (e.g., concepts in modern algebra or topology or even set theory) with no referents in objective reality, i.e., reality detected by the senses, processed into percepts, and formed into concepts by reason. She uses mathematics as the differentiation for defining concepts of objective reality but most thought deals with more than just measurements with respect to length and time. That would leave out nearly all mathematical concepts which only have referents as mental relationships which need not refer to anything that might exist physically or as actions and relationships in objective reality.
Is it logical to define a human as a type of animal -- a rational animal (note that 'rational' is relational and not measurable linearly) -- but then distinguish humans from the animals by claiming that the animals only have built in behaviors which they have to live by, i.e., have no rational faculty. Should one just slide over such ideas or at least rewrite it as a distinction between animals without a rational faculty and animals with a rational faculty.
When and if you find my advice wrong, you can correct me.
BTW, I don't "defend" Obj.ism; I simply correct others who make errors or answer questions re the philosophy.