I'm not really that interested in philosophy. Thought I was once, but then I found Objectivism, got things figured out, and I realized the reason I was interested in philosophy was I hadn't figured everything out and I HAD to do so.
Now that I'm at a good objective place, I simply use Objectivism as the tool it's meant to be for happy living. It no longer interests me, for the most part, to engage in long conversations about it or, especially, to get into heated arguments about it. Been there, done that. Got things to do. That's what life's about: doing.
Objectivism has become the tool I hardly notice in my garage. Yes, I notice it when I need to, momentarily. I use that mental tool effectively and consciously, but I don't dwell on the tool. I put it down again after usage. I may pick it up (honesty, independence, integrity, discovery) many times in a day, but each time, it's not about the tool. It's about doing something, and the tool helps me get it done.
Those first acolyte years of Objectivist learning were tough, exciting, enervating, exhausting and fulfilling. But I'm sure glad that's over. While I was having to do all that necessary learning, I couldn't be DOING the other things I love so much.
But if I hadn't stopped to do the learning, my "doing" right now would be sorely compromised, and life wouldn't be as joyful and carefree.
Glad to have the tools. Glad they're finally just tools.
Showing posts with label objectivism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label objectivism. Show all posts
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Principles first -- Unschooling second
The headline on this blog post isn't meant to diminish the importance of unschooling. It's meant to establish the fact that I have to have principles in place first before I can determine if unschooling is the proper method for raising my child, Livy. I determined before her birth that unschooling was, indeed, the proper way to raise her.
In working out my principles in the early 1990s, I determined the propriety of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand that states four primary things: 1) reality is real and understandable to humans; 2) humans have free will and rational brains that can figure out reality by forming facts; 3) because humans can make mistakes while working with reality, they need a code of ethics (honesty, independence, integrity, etc.) to help guide their minds; 4) because humans are rational and work by a code of ethics, they are the only ones who know how to make themselves happy and are, therefore, entitled to be left alone by other humans and by governments.
Because of the above four true generalizations about humans and reality, I determined that the best way to raise my child was to honor her right to her own life, to not get in the way of her extraordinary fact-finding mission and personal trail to happiness.
I also expect her to respect my rights and others' rights as I respect hers. This means that there are rules such as "you've got to clean up after yourself," "noise levels are limited in a room where some don't want noise," "fix your own food, if I don't want to fix it," "always be honest with me," "do not take others' stuff or violate their right to be left alone," "don't expect others to share or do something for you simply because you wish it," etc. We have been talking with each other about these rules for years now, with me giving explanations many times on why I think they are objective rules of conduct for not only kids, but also for adults.
I don't see unschooling as "unparenting." An objective parent has much to teach and much help to give about the facts of reality and what is right. I see that as my role, with my longterm plans of helping create an individual who will be not only my bloodline writ large in her own way, but be among my best and dearest of friends for life.
That is what she has turned out to be so far, an amazingly independent, thoughtful, caring, insightful individual who knows that in order to be free to run her own life, she must recognize the same for others and their lives.
Livy is a joy.
In working out my principles in the early 1990s, I determined the propriety of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand that states four primary things: 1) reality is real and understandable to humans; 2) humans have free will and rational brains that can figure out reality by forming facts; 3) because humans can make mistakes while working with reality, they need a code of ethics (honesty, independence, integrity, etc.) to help guide their minds; 4) because humans are rational and work by a code of ethics, they are the only ones who know how to make themselves happy and are, therefore, entitled to be left alone by other humans and by governments.
Because of the above four true generalizations about humans and reality, I determined that the best way to raise my child was to honor her right to her own life, to not get in the way of her extraordinary fact-finding mission and personal trail to happiness.
I also expect her to respect my rights and others' rights as I respect hers. This means that there are rules such as "you've got to clean up after yourself," "noise levels are limited in a room where some don't want noise," "fix your own food, if I don't want to fix it," "always be honest with me," "do not take others' stuff or violate their right to be left alone," "don't expect others to share or do something for you simply because you wish it," etc. We have been talking with each other about these rules for years now, with me giving explanations many times on why I think they are objective rules of conduct for not only kids, but also for adults.
I don't see unschooling as "unparenting." An objective parent has much to teach and much help to give about the facts of reality and what is right. I see that as my role, with my longterm plans of helping create an individual who will be not only my bloodline writ large in her own way, but be among my best and dearest of friends for life.
That is what she has turned out to be so far, an amazingly independent, thoughtful, caring, insightful individual who knows that in order to be free to run her own life, she must recognize the same for others and their lives.
Livy is a joy.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The biggest "Ayn Rand" name ever
After driving more than 12,000 miles around America, one enterprising Ayn Rand fan made the lady's name big enough to read from the moon. Check it out HERE.
Amazing!
Amazing!
Saturday, December 05, 2009
What you say and HOW you say it
Kids are walking "bullshit" detectors. They can smell anxiety, dishonesty, cowardice, awkwardness, trepidation and weakness in adults (or other kids) from across the yard or room or street -- probably even the heavens! Their brains are ravenous and alert and mostly (or completely) pristine, giving their bullshit radar-detectors a polished sheen, so that when the bullshit flies around them, it sticks clearly to their mental screens. They often consciously know what's happening, but, if not, they tap into it subconsciously and act accordingly to the person they are around, whether adult or other child.
For their subconscious mind, the other person's words and actions represent themselves generally as "Is this person truly confident about his rectitude?" or "Are this person's actions and words as hard as the big rock in the back yard, as hard as the reality around me, as sure as the cause and effect in the world?"
"Confidence" is a tangible intangible. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things in other people. Even the smooth shyster's subtle bluster reveals itself ever so slightly to a kid and to adults as sort of fake confidence via melodrama or shifty eyes or stentorian style or lack of ease in expression.
Being primal animals that are also rational, children are constantly searching for things that break, testing boundaries for weakness that can be exploited. It is a natural thing for them with the world around them, and it is used on the people in their lives. When weakness is found, it is exploited. It is survival -- survival of the fittest. It takes a confident, sure hand in a parent to guide the child in such situations, when necessary, to ensure the the exploitation is moral or that it shouldn't occur for objective reasons. This is one of the primary responsibilities of parents until the burgeoning rationality of the child learns to live in a society of people by objective standards, by objective principles that foster self-esteem and efficacy.
It is also necessary for parents to attempt to be objective all the time and correct any of their own irrationality immediately upon seeing it or upon getting a sense (feeling) that irrationality may be involved. It is, of course, necessary primarily for the adult to be happy, but the secondary benefit is being able to raise a happy, confident child that will be a beloved confidant for the years to come.
If you try to act confident but aren't, you're in trouble deep. The bullshit detector will sniff it out in an instant, and then the labyrinthine battle for power positioning will begin -- and the child will eventually win because you are out of control and will revert to further irrationalities to buttress the original irrationality in an attempt to regain control. I've seen this countless times with friends and acquaintances and their kids. It is horrifying to watch the vicious circle they get trapped in. It is upsetting to see the raw emotions aimed at a loved one with designs of hurting. It is depressing to see a child subconsciously understand that his parent hasn't a clue, and the child must attempt to tackle a big, complex, often-dangerous and cruel world all by himself. He often doesn't know this consciously, but he feels it, and the anxiety is palpable and visible to the rest of us.
As Objectivists know, the only way to be confident is to learn how to be rational all the time, to have a thorough understanding of how your mind works, to integrate a rigorous morality, to stay focused on values each hour of the day, and to universally implement all of the above in every minute of your life. Then, what you say and HOW you say it will tell your child, any child, any adult, that you are confident about reality, you mean business, you understand your business, you can explain your business, you are rigid but benevolent, you are strict but fair, and you are a moral hard rock of existence that cannot be broken, and therefore you are trustworthy and a person with whom your child can share thoughts, emotions and life without worry of retribution, senseless violence or putdowns, confusion, or any kind of injustice.
Any other method or path is woefully lacking -- and will lead to unhappiness in your life and your poor child's life, too. If you don't live by rational absolutes, many things will go absolutely wrong. If you achieve absolute certainty about what is right and live it, things will be just fine -- very fine indeed.
For their subconscious mind, the other person's words and actions represent themselves generally as "Is this person truly confident about his rectitude?" or "Are this person's actions and words as hard as the big rock in the back yard, as hard as the reality around me, as sure as the cause and effect in the world?"
"Confidence" is a tangible intangible. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things in other people. Even the smooth shyster's subtle bluster reveals itself ever so slightly to a kid and to adults as sort of fake confidence via melodrama or shifty eyes or stentorian style or lack of ease in expression.
Being primal animals that are also rational, children are constantly searching for things that break, testing boundaries for weakness that can be exploited. It is a natural thing for them with the world around them, and it is used on the people in their lives. When weakness is found, it is exploited. It is survival -- survival of the fittest. It takes a confident, sure hand in a parent to guide the child in such situations, when necessary, to ensure the the exploitation is moral or that it shouldn't occur for objective reasons. This is one of the primary responsibilities of parents until the burgeoning rationality of the child learns to live in a society of people by objective standards, by objective principles that foster self-esteem and efficacy.
It is also necessary for parents to attempt to be objective all the time and correct any of their own irrationality immediately upon seeing it or upon getting a sense (feeling) that irrationality may be involved. It is, of course, necessary primarily for the adult to be happy, but the secondary benefit is being able to raise a happy, confident child that will be a beloved confidant for the years to come.
If you try to act confident but aren't, you're in trouble deep. The bullshit detector will sniff it out in an instant, and then the labyrinthine battle for power positioning will begin -- and the child will eventually win because you are out of control and will revert to further irrationalities to buttress the original irrationality in an attempt to regain control. I've seen this countless times with friends and acquaintances and their kids. It is horrifying to watch the vicious circle they get trapped in. It is upsetting to see the raw emotions aimed at a loved one with designs of hurting. It is depressing to see a child subconsciously understand that his parent hasn't a clue, and the child must attempt to tackle a big, complex, often-dangerous and cruel world all by himself. He often doesn't know this consciously, but he feels it, and the anxiety is palpable and visible to the rest of us.
As Objectivists know, the only way to be confident is to learn how to be rational all the time, to have a thorough understanding of how your mind works, to integrate a rigorous morality, to stay focused on values each hour of the day, and to universally implement all of the above in every minute of your life. Then, what you say and HOW you say it will tell your child, any child, any adult, that you are confident about reality, you mean business, you understand your business, you can explain your business, you are rigid but benevolent, you are strict but fair, and you are a moral hard rock of existence that cannot be broken, and therefore you are trustworthy and a person with whom your child can share thoughts, emotions and life without worry of retribution, senseless violence or putdowns, confusion, or any kind of injustice.
Any other method or path is woefully lacking -- and will lead to unhappiness in your life and your poor child's life, too. If you don't live by rational absolutes, many things will go absolutely wrong. If you achieve absolute certainty about what is right and live it, things will be just fine -- very fine indeed.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Wall Street Journal article on Rand and market
A "bleeding-heart" libertarian posted a not-so-nice article on Ayn Rand today in the Wall Street Journal. Here's my letter to the WSJ in response.
_______________________
If Ayn Rand were alive today, she would chuckle at the clichéd attempt by Heather Wllhelm (“Is Ayn Rand Bad for the Market?”) to characterize Ms. Rand as “angry” and “vulgar,” as well as Ms. Wilhelm’s attempt to build a strawman of alleged sympathizers (Libertarians and a reverend, for Pete’s sake) in order to have those same “sympathizers” give voice to Ms. Wilhelm’s own immoral altruism.
As Ms. Wilhelm must know, Ms. Rand loathed alleged free-market conservatives and allegedly liberty-oriented Libertarians precisely because they claimed to love free markets but were actually wolves in sheep’s clothing for redistributionist statism and “bleeding-heart” Libertarianism – both of which taking the focus off of individual happiness and hegemony and placing it on strangers’ happiness and welfare.
Ms. Rand’s appropriate ire toward conservatism was primarily for their mysticism (the God thing). Her ire toward Libertarians was a result of her correctly realizing that Libertarians espoused “liberty” without giving it proper justification before a candid (rational) world: i.e. You must first prove the nature of humans (rational); then must determine what rational animals must do to survive and prosper (explicitly discover and define rational morality and values for guidance); then you must determine what type of government best allows such self-determination (unabridged laissez-faire capitalism). Without these principles firmly set in place, a country cannot build and validate a perfect, full-proof (rational) constitution – and therein lies the major fault of the whimsical Libertarians and their erratic and childish “liberty” pronouncements.
As to the infamous “anger” accusations, wouldn’t any rational mind be angry at America’s 20th-century Marxist movement of “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”? I, and most Objectivists, love Ms. Rand’s anger. It’s the pusillanimity of “sympathizers” such as Mr. Wilhelm that we find humorous – and vulgar.
_______________________
If Ayn Rand were alive today, she would chuckle at the clichéd attempt by Heather Wllhelm (“Is Ayn Rand Bad for the Market?”) to characterize Ms. Rand as “angry” and “vulgar,” as well as Ms. Wilhelm’s attempt to build a strawman of alleged sympathizers (Libertarians and a reverend, for Pete’s sake) in order to have those same “sympathizers” give voice to Ms. Wilhelm’s own immoral altruism.
As Ms. Wilhelm must know, Ms. Rand loathed alleged free-market conservatives and allegedly liberty-oriented Libertarians precisely because they claimed to love free markets but were actually wolves in sheep’s clothing for redistributionist statism and “bleeding-heart” Libertarianism – both of which taking the focus off of individual happiness and hegemony and placing it on strangers’ happiness and welfare.
Ms. Rand’s appropriate ire toward conservatism was primarily for their mysticism (the God thing). Her ire toward Libertarians was a result of her correctly realizing that Libertarians espoused “liberty” without giving it proper justification before a candid (rational) world: i.e. You must first prove the nature of humans (rational); then must determine what rational animals must do to survive and prosper (explicitly discover and define rational morality and values for guidance); then you must determine what type of government best allows such self-determination (unabridged laissez-faire capitalism). Without these principles firmly set in place, a country cannot build and validate a perfect, full-proof (rational) constitution – and therein lies the major fault of the whimsical Libertarians and their erratic and childish “liberty” pronouncements.
As to the infamous “anger” accusations, wouldn’t any rational mind be angry at America’s 20th-century Marxist movement of “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”? I, and most Objectivists, love Ms. Rand’s anger. It’s the pusillanimity of “sympathizers” such as Mr. Wilhelm that we find humorous – and vulgar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)