Watcher

Introduction

7 posts in this topic

Hi all,

I have just joined and thought I'd introduce myself. I have been into philosophy for years - I wrote a philosophy series in TableAus, the journal of Australian Mensa, for 20 years, finally finishing this year. My primary interest was developing my own philosophy rather than functioning as a "student of Objectivism", but it is influenced by and effectively the same as Objectivism. Anyone who cares about how I think can find out on my web site www.monorealism.com or on my Amazon author page: www.amazon.com/Robin-Craig/e/B007E83OQI/

I have even met some of you in person - I was at the 1997 Second Renaissance Conference, and also went (with my then recent wife Sonja - in fact it was a somewhat delayed honeymoon) on the Art Tour of italy in 1999.

Recently I've become more active online (hence joining this fine forum) - though my experiences so far are mixed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome! I read (and linked on Facebook) your "The One True God" blog post, just today. Very nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome. I had a look at your monorealism.com (very confusing trying to sort it from the rest of the webring and pop-ups.)

I too, from the youngest age, set out to make sense of the world. I had a "Thought Book" in which I tried to hash out a clear understanding of the world around me.

When I one day, by chance picked up 'Virtue of Selfishness' I quickly came to the conclusion that the problems I had been struggling with were being answered by a mind far more advanced in this area than mine.

Each revelation was another piece of the jig-saw slotting into place. I had to change nothing of my implicit philosophy as I felt very much about things as she did, but now it could be justified by the explicit reasoning that Ayn Rand had laid out. I would never have got there without her brilliance. Reading her work, it was yes! yes! yes! all the way. So this brings me to the point of asking you what you felt you had to add, or differ to, what she wrote. Reading your blog, I was unable to nail down what it was that you had discovered that added to what Rand had set out, and why you felt the need create a different philosophy.

By the way, the attitude of the Mensa crowd, in accepting philosophical relativism doesn't speak well of intelligent use of their mental assets. I had tossed out such rubbish by eleven years old. Good for you on that count. Intelligence counts for nothing if one doesn't know how to use it.

Anyway, perhaps you can get everyone here excited with a challenge, by putting forward your differing ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Michael.

Arnold, where in Queensland are you? We're on the Gold Coast and have monthly philosophy evenings (in fact, there's one on tonight) and if you're nearby you might like to come along sometime.

Yes, Mensa is living proof that IQ might be the start of intelligence but it doesn't even guarantee intelligence, let alone wisdom. I think it attracts a disproportionate number of people whose IQ is their only distinguishing feature.

And yes, the web ring seems to randomly hijack my pages - I'm going to have to do something about that. I might quarantine it more.

Re my "different philosophy", the thing is that I set out to start from reality and develop it where it went. If I called my site an Objectivist site, then it would be a reasonable presumption that my aim was to explain Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, or worse, that I was claiming that what I wrote accurately portrayed her philosophy. Also, Leonard Peikoff once said that if what you have isn't Ayn Rand's Objectivism, don't call it that. And as I say, my aim was to develop a philosophy to my own satisfaction, not primarily study someone else's (though obviously I have been heavily influenced by Ayn Rand). I believe I have developed things in a different way and to somewhat different arguments (off the top of my head, I believe that what I wrote on free will is a different argument, the validation of inductive reasoning is unique and my treatment of quantum mechanics is mine) - but the result doesn't have any major disputes with Objectivism. And as there is one reality and the rules of reasoning are what they are, I don't think that is surprising!

My career is science and I have always held the primacy of reality and the power of reason. However I had accepted the view that "there is no ought in an is" - which is true, on the face of it. Furthermore I despised philosophy, because all I'd ever come across was generally either trying to disprove the obvious, prove the ridiculous, or just waffly verbiage (or all three). So when some friends (in Mensa, as it turns out) showed my "Philosophy Who Needs It" I just laughed - exactly my attitude. But when I read it, it was the first philosophy I'd read that I could not immediately dismiss as twaddle, even though it disagreed with some of my ideas at the time. I was not entirely convinced that she'd solved the is-ought problem but I was sure she'd made a pretty good stab at it. As time went by (and I thought about it myself) I came to realise that she was basically right. And the rest led from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for expanding a bit on your ideas. This site is a lot quieter than in previous years, but if you check the past entries via the search facility, you may find both challenges and answers to your different take on some of the issues you mentioned.

I live on the Sunshine Coast, it's less hectic than the Gold Coast which is like another country to me. :) Thanks for the invitation; if you get up this way with one of your meetings, I would love to drop in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This site is a lot quieter than in previous years, but if you check the past entries via the search facility, you may find both challenges and answers to your different take on some of the issues you mentioned.

Yeah, what's with that? Maybe we just need some new blood to spark some debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This site is a lot quieter than in previous years, but if you check the past entries via the search facility, you may find both challenges and answers to your different take on some of the issues you mentioned.

Yeah, what's with that?

In a word: Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites