| | Jennifer,
I received an A on my paper with the comment, "Thanks for the philosophy lesson & insight into your point of view." The paper wasn't shared with classmates and I saw no one else's report, though I did hear other people comment that they did not like the book. The instructor seems to like it though and she has said that some have spoken very highly of the book in the past.
The instructor has made some very collectivist statements in the class such as that an addict's problems are everybody's problems (because of how they effect "society") and she has stated her support for smoking bans in privately owned places visited by the public such as restaurants and bars. However, she is receptive to other opinions and welcomes debate. After my last report, she showed me an autographed copy of a book sent to her by one of the authors, who is a friend of her's. It is Coming Clean: Overcoming Addiction Without Treatment by Robert Granfield and William Cloud. I had time to read the introduction and peruse the rest of the book and some of the conclusions. It appeared to be the antithesis of The Addictive Personality. I told her I gave it my tentative approval.
Because I believe the instructor has an active mind and could be receptive to Objectivist ideas, I wrote my report as I did, with the hope that it would at least lead her to think about some of these ideas.
I remember nine years ago, when I had just started actively studying Objectivism, having a discussion with a friend. I don't remember the topic but I do remember going over my position with him point by point. And point by point he agreed with me. In spite of this, he came to a completely opposite conclusion from me. I remember being flabbergasted and asking him how he could agree with me on every point and come to such an opposite conclusion. He stated, matter-of-factly and quite correctly, "We have different philosophies."
If I am going to persuade someone to re-think their ideas, it is often necessary to get to the very root of their disagreement, that is their metaphysical and epistemological premises. This is not an easy task.
I am not shy about expressing my opinions with other people and I usually find people very receptive to rational ideas. I will not normally tell them their ideas are wrong, just that I have a different opinion, and I express it.
Recently, I was in classroom training where the instructor would talk about how "Christian" someone was and she would tell us how we should not be judgmental and we should be pursuing altruistic goals. I would often tell her politely but briefly how I disagreed and she would respond that "we need to talk" and "Bob, we should do lunch sometime." One day, when she was on the nonjudgmental and altruistic bandwagon more so than usual, I let her know that to ask me to not make judgements of other people is like asking me to stick a knife through my brain because my very life depends on my making judgements, and that I thought altruism was the most evil philosophy ever perpetrated upon the mind of man. She told me that I sounded just like her brother who was into "libertarian" stuff and Ayn Rand. This led to an interesting class discussion where I explained some of the basics of Objectivism. My ideas were met very favorably by the class, all of whom are social workers. The last time I spoke to the instructor, she was reading Ayn Rand's We the Living based on my recommendation.
There are definitely a lot of people it will do no good to try to persuade. Having the wisdom to know when to speak and when to keep my mouth shut is a skill that I've developed over time.
|
|
