About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 140

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Newberry!
You are so sneaky! Of course you enjoyed this thread. You restarted the whole thing! I shall repudiate thee!

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 5/09, 8:23pm)


Post 141

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 5:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"What do you say about someone who apparently loves like that frequently (in public, too) and changes his mind 50% of the time?"


Too generous of his time and praise. Too hasty with his judgements to the contrary. Or, simply, part of the statistical norm.



Sanction: 57, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 57, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 57, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 57, No Sanction: 0
Post 142

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 5:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"What do you say about someone who apparently loves like that frequently (in public, too) and changes his mind 50% of the time?"

Too generous of his time and praise. Too hasty with his judgements to the contrary. Or, simply, part of the statistical norm.
This seems to come full circle. Anyone with a mediocre record of being wrong half the time shouldn’t be surprised if their credibility in judging character is nil. Why would anyone with that kind of incompetence rush into voicing any sort of judgement? And why would they ever expect to be respected for their future judgements?
With good and productive people who have honorable reputations mistakes of that kind are punished by humbly going back to square one, and taking very careful and well reasoned baby steps–both slowly establishing their confidence and credibility. Less honorable people rage on that they are victims and, I believe, only then attract other such neurotics.

The point of this stuff is that it is refreshing and kind of fun when the good, the creative, and the flourishing shine a little light on absurdities.

Michael


Post 143

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 7:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow, Michael, you make everything sound so simple, and clear.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 144

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 8:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It sort of falls under the heading that 'evil is impotent' unless it gets the sanction of the victim.....

Sanction: 52, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 52, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 52, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 52, No Sanction: 0
Post 145

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 1:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael Moeller:

In your post #134 you ask about the comparison of Objectivists to fanatics and cultists.

Yes, like you, I have had many opportunities to see people attempt to smear Objectivism with a broad brush by first associating it with something really nasty and then, using that association, simply dismiss the entire body of thought without further consideration. It is always crudely done through an appallingly bad chain of logic, is transparently flawed, and also surprisingly effective on a certain portion of the populace. Like you, I too once got really upset at the injustice. And I'm not being condescending here when I say that the anger is, to some degree, an age thing. I believe I do understand where your passion is coming from because I see the same thing in myself and in earlier days I could really fly off the handle. However, as I got older and passed through many experiences, I came to reevaluate the relative importance of a number of things. As a result, I find that I am much calmer about certain subjects that once made me apoplectic!

As I see it, there are two broad categories where Objectivists can disagree. The first is with respect to an interpretation of what the philosophy says and how it is to be applied. A few examples in this area would be the truth/toleration vs. is/ought debate, an analysis of the appropriate responses to be taken after 9/11, or the ever popular ethics of emergencies discussion. The second category of disagreement has to do with the techniques and methods that are used to convey or debate the philosophy. The current thread falls into this second arena.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me from reviewing your recent posts that you see some of the statements that I made as being an unwarranted smear of Objectivism, of the type I discussed in the second paragraph. I assure you that this is not the case. I am being critical, but that criticism is directed at certain means and methods that various individuals use in their defense of Objectivism. And more specifically, I am being critical not of any sort of general defense of the philosophy, but a method of defense directed against fellow Objectivists - or at least against others who profess an interest and sympathy for the Objectivist philosophy.

Why be concerned about another persons methods at all? Because it is my belief that the bad behavior exhibited by others does great harm. These poor representatives set such a bad example that it sends a message to those unfamiliar with Objectivism that there is no point in wasting time examining the philosophy in detail if this is what can be expected as a result of putting it into practice. It also alienates and drives away people who have made a commitment to the philosophy but are still on the path to a fully integrated understanding. And finally, it stops full-fledged Objectivists from working together on projects of common cause, because many simply cannot stand to work with others who do not know how to properly extend an appropriate level of understanding, respect and appreciation.

You took exception when I said:

"When I reflect on Peikoff's past excommunications, the emotional undertone of Diana's diatribe
or on many of the past rants by Lindsay in the old SoloHQ days, these seem like actions more
appropriate to the Christian Crusades than to the philosophy of reason and a benevolent universe.
Like the Islamic Fundamentalists, it's time for many Objectivists to grow up."

Here I have said absolutely nothing about Objectivism. I am only making a critical observation about the methods used by certain people. My point was that, with respect to the particular actions of these individuals, I saw a common set of characteristics. Each person engaged in an unrelenting vituperative attack on others which included a large dose of moral condemnation, all of which was, by my judgement, out of proportion to the trigger event(s). In each case, the attacks were directed against people who were previously considered close friends or associates, and once the attacks began there was no further mention or acknowledgement of any positive characteristics which were, at an earlier time, publically extolled. Finally, in all three cases, many other individuals objected to various aspects of these attacks and took great pains to present reasons and arguments to back up their objections. Despite this, I never observed Lindsay, Diana or Peikoff modify their positions in the face of any counter-evidence or counter-argument.

When I consider the above, this set of behaviors does look very much like behavior I observe in religious fanatics and cultists. I am certainly not saying that there is a one-to-one correspondence between all behavior of a fanatic and the people above. I'm saying that there is a correspondence in the set of behaviors I have identified. You might ask, "But why make this type of comparison at all?". I do it because I think it is instructive. But instead of telling you what to think, I am willing to let each reader draw their own inferences and extract their own lessons, which they can then apply to their own conduct, if they see fit. It is my hope that some people may gain some beneficial insight from me sharing my observations, just as I read other people's posts in the hope that I too will be similarly enlightened.

So, I'm not attempting to tar Objectivism with my comments. Just the opposite. I'm trying to make a small contribution that will allow more people to see and realize the benefits of the philosophy. And I'm also not attempting to tar Lindsay, Diana or Leonard. Each has made important contributions to the movement, and each has made mistakes, but I don't think they are horrible people. I couldn't work with any of them under present conditions because of the reasons stated above, but I wouldn't be opposed to doing so in the future if some of these factors were to change.

I hope that helps make my earlier posts a bit more understandable.

Regards,
--
Jeff


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 146

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 5:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rest assured, Jeff, you're not the only one who has noted these parallels - you just be the messenger who brought them forth, the bearer as it were of unwanted information...  

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 147

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow, Michael, you make everything sound so simple, and clear.

Hong, and by the high number of people agreeing with Michael's  last post, it is a good sign that there are many good people on this forum who understand what integrity means.


Post 148

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 2:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Jeff, for post 145. [sanction]

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 149

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 7:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff writes:  "I hope that helps make my earlier posts a bit more understandable."

It does, Jeff, and that was a good post.  You bring up a lot of points and I would like to take a look at it from a couple of other angles.

The first one is the issue of psychological diagnoses in people that one does not know well, especially in regards to one's Objectivist adversaries.  Its an easy game to play, to observe some behavior and attribute it emotional dysfunction or neuroses or whatever.  This may very well generate a lot of applause to if you are doing it to a crowd that doesn't like the other people.

The reason I think a lot of people retreat to this arena (and far too often) lies in a basic fact of consciousness--that another person's consciousness is not directly perceptible.   Another person's own private world is accessible only by what they reveal, and there is a lot that is not seen.  But to some, it is an open invitation to engage in arbitrary speculation about what is happening inside another's head--a very nonobjective enterprise.  Rand's answer to the question--"Is it proper to judge the psychological motives of a person based on his ideas?"--is very instructive here (Ayn Rand Answers, pg 169):
...to arrive at a psychological verdict on the psychology of a man they [psychologists diagnosing Goldwater] had never met, which is just as improper professionally, if not worse, than a doctor diagnosing a medical disease in somebody he's never met....If you wanted to expose a psychological aberration, you'd need to analyze what's wrong with an idea and then demonstrate that only improper motives A, B, and C could lead to anyone holding such an idea...To deduce the motives of a man from is writings is improper and nonobjective, because there could be ten million motives for the same kind of action... 
I suggest that others read the whole answer because I left out some good parts in order to essentialize.  Here, one can look at another's denunciations (or shifting evaluations or whatever) and analyze, they are statements afterall.  Take these at face value and use them as a working template to evaluate methods, but speculations about the causes in another's consciousness is improper and unwarranted.  If it was just to highlight the methods, then fair enough.

Secondly, when comparing other people by way of their methods, keep your context of whom you are comparing.  Human consciousness is very complex, but there are a lot of commonalities on many levels and one can tune it down to "narrow senses" and establish all kinds of links.  However, when this is not done by essentials, the comparison can look ridiculous (Hitler example post #131).  Jeff, if you don't find the mentioned people to be horrible, then a comparison to horrible people is unwarranted; otherwise, restricting it down to "narrow senses" looks a lot more like rationalization.

So yes, Jeff, I want to correct on one count.  I know you didn't do it as a general smear of Objectivism.  I was trying to get people to pay attention to subtler levels when making comparisons like that, even if directed at specific individuals in narrow respects.

You make a good observation of the division in Objectivism based on both content and method.  To be honest, I think there are good reasons for this division and good reasons NOT to find common cause.  You mention some specifics (truth/toleration, ethics of emergencies, etc.), but there is one I find growing by the minute--moral judgment.  A lot of people, particularly followers of N. Branden, have perceived this to be Judgmentalism vs. Non-Judgmentalism.  To be fair to Mr. Branden, a lot of followers may have taken the ball and run with it way beyond what he perhaps intended.  However, he does not help himself with a very concrete-bound view of moral judgment (see his answer on moral judgment in the interview with Alex Mouhibian). 

A lot of people have also leapt on his criticisms of Rand and moral judgment, consider these statements:
One of the mistakes that Rand makes all over the place is that after she condemns a belief or an action, she goes on to tell you the psychology of the person who did it, as if she knows.  I focus my judgment on the action and not on the person.  (Alex Mouhibian interview)
and
To look on the dark side, however, part of her vision of justice is urging you to instant contempt for anyone who deviates from reason or morality or what is defined as reason or morality. Errors of knowledge may be forgiven, she says, but not errors of morality. Even if what people are doing is wrong, even if errors of morality are involved, even if what people are doing is irrational, you do not lead people to virtue by contempt.  (The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand)
Now, the first question is whether she actually did this in practice, which I'll leave to others to debate.  He uses her articles on esthetics to buttress this claim. Others also use the "judge, and prepare to be judged" or the "One must never fail to pronounce moral judgement" quotes to support this as well.  But is this fair to what Rand actually said on the subject?  Let's take a better look at her writings (in VOS--"How Does One Lead a Rational Life"):
Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything....But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility.  To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil....so every rational person must maintain an equally strict solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind, where the responsibility is more awesome than in a public tribunal....(italics mine)
A little later in the same article:
The opposite of moral neutrality is not a blind, arbitrary, self-righteous condemnation of any idea, action or person that does not fit one's mood, one's memorized slogans or one's snap judgment of the moment.  Indiscriminate tolerance and indiscriminate condemnation are not two opposites: they are two variants of the same evasion.....It is not an easy task [moral judgment], it is not a task that can be performed automatically by one's feelings, "instincts" or hunches.  It is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought.  It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principles; it can be very difficult to apply them  to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. (italics mine)
So compare NB's quotes against what Rand said, you'll see an enormous gap.  From my Brandenian days, one thing became clear to me, there was a huge difference in a view of moral judgment, and how to apply it.  I could see that, in my soul, I was Randian with respect to moral judgment and I was in the wrong arena.  On the Non-Judgementalist side there is gaping holes, the most important of which is that one is confronted with morality every day of one's life.  Non-Judgmentalism will tend to immunize one against how to properly use it, which is a matter of sufficient evidence, NOT of not exercising it.

What is my point in running on with this?  Rand was a moralist, and huge breaches on moral judgment are going to create divisions in Objectivism, much deeper than people appreciate (based on content).  Besides the personality conflicts involved, I think some more attention needs to be paid to the substantive issues in Objectivist divisions and whether it is even possible to find common cause.

As far as being upset at injustice, there is always a question of the appropriate expression of anger.  And no, Jeff, I don't take offense to it being an "age thing".  I fully recognize that.  There's a lot of other factors in play with respect to personal style and one which I would like to mention--and this will shock some here--it is competitiveness.  Yes, competitiveness, some people regard this as so foreign to the intellectual realm.  It seems like a number of Objectivists have forgotten or don't know how to win.  They would rather write articles cloaked in academicspeak with little intelligibility.  Fine, there's a time and place for looking at subjects in a "cold light", but there is also an effectiveness in combining substance with fire.  The key here is--have a better message

Regards,
Michael

(Edited by Michael Moeller on 5/12, 7:18am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 150

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 7:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Man is not a perfect being. We usually don't search for moral flaws in friends and family,(unless it is important)
as much as they don't search for flows in us,but once we become enemies and the wall of respect is abated, the negativities are shown and present in every one and on both side . No one can say; I am not guilty! Because we are human and humans have flaws. And when some of them think to be perfect, that is the proof of their flaws!!
Ciro

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 5/12, 7:08pm)


Post 151

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 4:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,

I cannot help but really enjoy discussions on morality. But I differ with your statement, undoubtedly, we mean different things by "perfect".

Moral perfection doesn’t seem like a big deal to me nor unsurmountable. For me it means being true to yourself and to do good works (I mean that in sense of creating value with your work and interactions with friends.)

Mistakes, petty feelings, lack of knowledge, anger, and, even in some contexts, lying (such as the Nazi scenario in which you are questioned the whereabouts of an innocent person) these things are just human stuff, we are not omniscient and we have to discover truths and means.

Morality is not breeched when someone makes a mistake or anything like that but when they are motivated to destroy the good. Usually they rationalize their true motives either lying to themselves or to their "public". You can check this out objectively by studying what their actions "accomplish" and when these horrible people are faced with the results of their actions they merely look for scapegoats and loudly proclaim their victimhood.

Rand touched on moral perfection somewhere, perhaps someone here can find the quote for it? Being perfectly moral, from my viewpoint, is not really difficult at all, you just have to be self aware and good.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 5/13, 4:48pm)


Post 152

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Morality is not breeched when someone makes a mistake or anything like that but when they are motivated to destroy the good.

 
 Usually they rationalize their true motives either lying to themselves or to their "public". You can check this out objectively by studying what their actions "accomplish" and when these horrible people are faced with the results of their actions they merely look for scapegoats and loudly proclaim their victimhood.

Michael, this may shock you, but I never met in my entire life a sane person who wanted to destroy the good! If a person destroy the good he has perceived it as evil. When a person understand what's the good, he understand also that the good  cannot harm him in any way, because, it is the good. The good, works the same way for everybody. When someone destroys the good he is insane!!!

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 5/13, 6:28pm)


Post 153

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 7:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah, Ciro,

Of course sane people don't do such things. Now back to the topic! Have you met insane people, or know of them, that destroy for the sake of destroying--You're an Italian! Come on, what about all those catholic priests that go after little kids????

ahhahahaha, sanity has got to be a earned state of being!!!!

I just had a big class of red wine and pasta carbonara---bacon, parmigiano, olive oil, garlic, a little white wine, crushed black pepper, a little parsley, and a raw egg...heaven.
Now isn’t that morally perfect???!!!

Michael


Post 154

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 8:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[And folk say there's no morality in eating....... mmmmmmmm, good]


Post 155

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 11:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, I understand your point: sanity has got to be a earned state of being!!!!

I agree!

Michael, do you put a little cream in the carbonara?

 

I think that  pedophilia is as old as man's existence. It is not only the priests.

 

I met  in 1976, a man called Carlo Gambino, not the boss of the bosses, but his son in low

whose name was Carlo Gambino as well. He commited suicide after shoting his wife (Carlo Gambino's daugther) in the head. She survived, but he died. After the old man Carlo'death, He was supposed to be the next boss of the organized crime family, but he preferred to die instead.

Michael, as you can see I have met some insane persons. :-)

BTW, Carlo loved art. :-))

 

ps. We used to buy food for our restaurant, from Carlo!!! no other Italian restaurant could open in our same town. I never found a better way to fight compatition since Carlo's death. lol

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 5/14, 8:28am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7


User ID Password or create a free account.