RoR: Forum

These comments, especially Ted's, are highly disrespectful to Rand -- someone whom you folks owe a lot, especially since you are regular contributors to an Objectivist forum. And you're criticizing ME for bad manners,Ted, because I object to the moral obligation to tip waitresses? Unbelievable! Quoting that remark of Teets without comment was tantamount to an endorsement, which I found bewildering and offensive.

I was also responding as much to the general zaniness and inscrutable nature of your comments (like your remark about being a "waitress") many of which are made without any reasonable explanation, so that the reader is left wondering what in the Hell you're talking about.

I've really stopped taking you seriously. You strike me as some kind of a semi-troll.

- Bill

Post 21

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 11:20am

Bill,

I'm in sympathy with your post.

I think that the underlying issues are legitimate. That is, the issues regarding the factions in the Objectivist movement, the tendency of some supporters to behave like cultists, how best to conceptualize the role of a philosophy's founder relative to the philosophy and Objectivism's place in the world of academic philosophy.

But even though the issues are legitimate, the language used in some posts IS disrespectful - a kind of smirking, elitist disdain, a condescending, sarcasm issued as if language's chief delight is it's use to paint metaphorical pretties that can attack one thing while pretending to say another.

I'm not referring just to Ted's posts. His posts, too often in recent days, have left me more bewildered. I start reading them and feel dismay, till I realize it is sarcasm. So I start rereading - inverting the meaning in some fashion, as one must with sarcasm, to see what he is implying, rather than saying outright. Sometimes that doesn't entirely help and I still feel a bit dismayed.

I was referring more to Teets' posts and to what I see as innocent misunderstanding the disrespect I believe is behind his words. Tremblay, Mike and Sam don't seem to see what you, Ed and I do.

Post 22

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 12:11pm

What is the sentence before the one where Teets uses the metaphor of "killing" Rand? He quotes Oscar wilde (known, apparently, both for his absolute literalism, and his several parricides) as saying "Dans la literature il faut toujours tuer son pere" (in literature one must always kill one's father)."

Once again, I am dismayed at the level of reading comprehension. We get attacks on quotes taken out of context that amount to outrage at a straw-bogeyman. Having assumed that people reading this thread could understand rhetorical hyperbole, and would talk about whether or not Objectivism would benefit from a formalization of its presentation to academics as opposed to an Ayn Rand Fanclub approach, I get insulted off the block and then my obvious sarcasm in response to such nonsense is treated as possible evidence of my "real" hatred of Rand.

Such responses prove Teets point. There is something wrong when a person with over 4000 posts and 7000 sanction points whose opinions everyone knows gets treated as if he were some newly appeared troll of hidden motives and questionable "loyalty." Forget the issue, let's not let Rand's name even appear to be besmirched.

Let's stop looking at rhetorical hyperbole taken out of context for hidden meanings and questioning the motives of our opponents and ask what is the point the authors were actually making and is it valid.

Do Teets and Tremblay want to blacklist and suppress Rand, or do they want to see the future of Objectivism be about ideas rather than personality? Are they advocating putting Objectivism as it stands (which they describe as intuitive) in a form appropriate for academic debate, or are they advocating a "sell-out?" Does Rand need to be attacked, or defended, or be removed from the table as a matter of philosophical discussion.

Do people here think that Tara Smith and David Kelley are better "children" of Rand or do they think Leonard peikoff and James Valliant are more faithful disciples to her spirit? Do people think that Objectivism is best served by fora which ban people for referring to Rand by her full name? Why is it that people like Harry Binswanger engage in discussion only when a strict orthodoxy of politically correct behaqvior is maintained. And most important, why do people like the scholar and Journal editor Chris Sciabarra no longer post on any Objectivist fora at all?

Post 23

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 12:19pm

It is this last that most closely resembles what the Zen Buddhist saying calls for - achieving personal, inner growth - the 'killing' is done in ones own mind, for one's self.

Of course. If you, in your search for truth, find that your mentor has some shortcomings, then move through him to your own beliefs. This isn't in any way disrespectful, it's just recognizing that no one, even the one who brought you thus far, is perfect in every way.

There are others who want to 'kill' the mentor because they want to take a different path and the beliefs, tied to that mentor, stop them. When someone calls for removing Rand from Objectivism, ask yourself if they are projecting their need to grow some more, to become more their own mentor, or are they chaffing at not being able to move away from basic principles that are anchored by Rand?

Anyone who professes to be an Objectivist can't logically remove Rand from the philosophy.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 12/07, 12:35pm)

(Edited by Sam Erica on 12/07, 2:41pm)

Post 24

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 12:34pm

The underlying criticism - that Objectivism disdains academic give-and-take - is a decade or two out of date. ARI (through the Anthem Foundation), TAS (until recently) and the AR Society of the APA have all been working to bring Rand's ideas into the academic mainstream.

Post 25

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 1:30pm

Ted,

Your last post makes me believe that you have had as much of a problem with reading comprehension as you accuse others. I will put my points in bulleted form in hopes of clearing things up and I suggest that you spend less time so deep in sarcasm - it isn't working well for you. It obscures whatever it is you are trying to say, and it often feels insulting, but in ways that leave people unclear as to whether that was the intent.

The valid issues that arose in Teets' posts are as follows:

There are harmful factions in the Objectivist movement,
There is a tendency of some supporters to behave like cultists,
how should we conceptualize the role of a philosophy's founder relative to the philosophy
What is Objectivism's place in the world of academic philosophy?

I acknowledged those as legitimate but went on to say:

There are other meaning valid to the use of 'kill Rand' that should be looked at.
There are psychological issues common to some supporters and it is that they need to change, not the philosophy.
Other times 'kill Rand' can mean, 'free me from her writings so I can stray from the confines of her principles'

Those are valid observations.

We know what rhetorical hyperbole is - no need to be condescending. My point was that colorful language, by echewing the literal and the precise, allow for hidden meanings, or secondary messages, and those aren't always pleasant. I'm quite prepared to illustrate that in what Teets wrote if anyone wants to read what I write with some comprehension.

Post 26

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 1:46pm

Peter, I agree with what you are saying about the real progress Objectivism is making in the academic arena. But the academic main stream still treats Objectivism as pop philosophy. It is getting better, but it is still early in the game.

I don't disdain academic give and take. I think it is a healthy, positive process when it has a degree of honesty and openness. I want to see Objectivism in the universities being examined and treated with critical reasoning. But, I don't have a lot of respect for most of what passes for philosophy in academia at this time, or for the incestuous, close-knitted, circle-the-wagons approach to anything outside of the academic world, or for the PC attitudes encountered by anyone outside the 'accepted truths.'

Post 27

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 3:20pm

Ted,

... whether or not Objectivism would benefit from a formalization of its presentation to academics as opposed to an Ayn Rand Fanclub approach ...

I think that Objectivism would benefit from a formalization of its presentation to academics as opposed to an Ayn Rand Fanclub approach. However, I'm not privy to any Ayn Rand Fanclub approaches aimed toward its presentation to academics. I know of Objectivism critics who make it out to be "cultish" (instead of as a philosophy for living well on Earth) -- but I don't know of any proponents of Objectivism, who present it to academia as "cultish."

It seems that your dismay ought to be directed mostly at the critics of Objectivism, not at its proponents.

... ask what is the point the authors were actually making and is it valid.

First of all, I don't read Tremblay as agreeing with Teets. I think it's a mistake to refer to them as "the authors" and to assume they agree on this. Here is my take on what they said:

-Tremblay was saying if you're not an implicit Objectivist after studying philosophy then you don't know enough or care enough (about philosophy).
-Teets was saying that that kind of apparent hubris was wrecking the integration of Objectivism into society

There is that response where Tremblay says something about "agree with your post unreservedly" or something along those lines. I think he mis-typed what he meant to say there. Here is why I think so:

When Teets pressed Tremblay for a possible narrowness or one-sidedness of opinion, Tremblay's answer was "no" every time. That was a defense against what Teets was saying and meant -- not an agreement with what Teets was saying and meant.

Tremblay's "agree unreservedly" response to Teets doesn't integrate with the other things he had to say (to Teets). Tremblay never wavered from his position that if you're not at least an implicit Objectivist -- then you're uncool.

:-)

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/07, 3:30pm)

Post 28

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 3:46pm

Oh, I saw all the atlas points on this thread and stopped by because I thought you guys were having an interesting conversation. Hmm, I need to do my laundry.

Post 29

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 4:14pm

Funny, DMG. Red checked.

As for the cult thing... If you read about Popper, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, or just about anyone, you will see that their private lives were a mess ... as whose is not?

Moreover, they had cultish, clannish students -- including doctoral candidates. Furthermore, while this is amusing among philosophers, it is almost heartbreaking when you read it among mathematicians. The biographies in Stephen Hawking's God Created the Integers tell of cupidity, spite, ignorance, and rank academic politicking that prevented truly gifted people from earning a living. I mean, OK, if they were so smart,they could have worked as actuaries or something. Maybe there were "free market" alternatives. But that is irrelevant. In the social context in which Cauchy, Fourier and Laplace lived, they expected fairness and objective judgment based on the value of their work. You would think that mathematics would be objective. It was not. Appointments went to people who had connections and influence. For all of that, we do not condemn mathematics in general or even ignore the works of people who wrangled jobs.

If you want to know how serious this could be, read Wittgenstein's Poker. I read it and reported on it for a criminology class because here you had a crowded living room of 18 or 20 intelligent people and no one could agree on whether or not Popper was assaulted. But OK, when you get into a philosophy class and they assign Wittgenstein, you can't say -- and no one does -- "Why do we have to study that crackpot?"

Post 30

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 6:15pm

Of course, I recognize the cultism in some quarters of Objectivism. I've written about it myself. Nor do I take everything Rand says as "gospel." But there comes a point where honest disagreement and independent thinking end and unwarranted disrespect begins. It is the latter that I think is in evidence on this thread.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 12/07, 6:22pm)

Post 31

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 6:47pm

I know it gets us right back off the subject, but I don't see what is so disrespectful in this thread.

This thread has so much more to it yet it is Rand that is being discussed. Bill claims this thread is evidence of disrespect and Wolfie claims there are mystical subliminal messages (spooky). Why, because someone wrote she might get in the way of academic study?

Does this mean we are not to comment on Her Majesty...I mean Ayn Rand...I mean Rand in any way that might direct light on her overbearing persona? Is she off limits?

BTW, nice edit Bill ;)

Post 32

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 7:25pm

One of the problems here -- which gives rise to some of the other problems here -- is that folks are working with different opinions as to why Objectivism isn't well-integrated into academia. One such opinion is that Rand (or a sub-group of her followers) is to blame for this lack of integration of Objectivism into academia. But until evidence is offered in support of that, it's just mere opinion.

One of the solutions here -- which would circumvent many of the problems here -- is to discover why Objectivism isn't well-integrated into academia. Discovering the reason, or the main reason, would circumvent the need to rely on variably-justified or variably-justifiable opinions.

I'm of the opinion that a primary reason that Objectivism isn't well-integrated into academia is because of all of its answers.

Post-modern and left-liberal instructors -- and it's not opinion, but fact, that most instructors are left-liberals -- like questions more than answers. They especially abhor final answers. That is why Plato will always be taught, because he posed the greatest first questions. Aristotle, who arrived at most of the answers, can be "safely" taught, too -- because left-liberal, post-modern instructors can always slander him by reminding students that he thought that dolphins were fish -- or that women had less teeth than men ... [edit: ... or defended slavery!].

The take-away message is that rational and objective philosophy scares them (as does even smart students), and so it is they who would attack Objectivism's founder -- based on their fear or loathing of the ideas, themselves. It is they who would work to focus on the ad hominem. As I said before, it is the critics of Objectivism -- not its proponents -- who are primarily preventing the integration of Objectivism into academia.

It is a case of ideological censorship.

In the coming months, I will attempt to retrieve evidence that would make this not just a (my) opinion -- but a supported fact.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/07, 9:02pm)

Post 33

Sunday, December 7, 2008 - 8:11pm

Ed,

I can't imagine that your hypothesis needs any further study or would run into much opposition on this forum - certainly not by those of us who have sat in the classes.
---------

To the other Steve,

Speaking of respect, I prefer being referred to as Steve, or Steve Wolfer, or SW - up to you, but I'd prefer not to be given unsolicited, cutsie nick names. Respect would also be evident in referring to Rand differently than you chose to. When you see that people are upset that someone they respect is being treated disrespectfully, and you chose to jump in like you did, the legitimate question is, "Did he purposely decide to make people here feel bad? Is he that kind of person?" Again, up to you.

Post 34

Monday, December 8, 2008 - 12:15am

My computer was down for the past three days. Thank God!

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 35

Monday, December 8, 2008 - 7:02am

Thank God?? Praise Galt.......;-)

Post 36

Monday, December 8, 2008 - 1:02pm