RoR: Forum

"I would have know"? Please read: I would have known."

Barbara

Post 81

Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 10:43pm

I have been away from SOLO for several days and have missed most of the goings-on on this thread as a result. But I'd like to say that I am disgusted by the return of those who have publicly attacked SOLO. They are parasites and attention-seekers. Let's face it, their site is a pathetic excuse which is more full of sour grapes than anything else. And then, to return here after it all! It smacks of attention-seeking. Not to mention the downright lies of a man who claims never to have attacked SOLO - we've all *read* those attacks. They go on and on. They never end. This is not the first time this man has had an absolute obsession with writing about something he believes to be a travesty. First it was homosexuality, which he wrote a *whole book* about - then criticised SOLOHQ for being too concerned with the subject! And now, SOLO itself... truly disturbing. Good riddance.

Probably I'll be accused of similar tactics, of prolonging all this... well, I can keep mine to a paragraph, rather than a three-part article!

Post 82

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 1:36am

Cam wrote:

"Probably I'll be accused of similar tactics, of prolonging all this... well, I can keep mine to a paragraph, rather than a three-part article!"

You won't get that accusation from this direction. It's not a matter of "prolonging all this" ... it's a matter of rallying to one's values when they're under attack. Because of SOLO's openness, we've had some quite disgusting people take advantage of us. Because we specifically err on the side of liberality rather than restrictiveness, such low-lifes have been allowed to get away with a hell of a lot that wouldn't be permitted to them elsewhere. This has an advantage, though - it gives observers ample opportunity to see the low-lifes' viciousness in its naked & unambiguous loathsomeness. A poster above says he was struck dumb by how low Regi & Cass stooped in their last posts. Had these two been neutralised earlier, their true spiritual sordidness - evident to me many weeks ago - might still have eluded most here. Now, no one has any excuse.

Linz

Post 83

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 2:36am

Daniel wrote, in this thread:

"Sigh. Yes. If you've ever wondered why pedantry and verbalism is endemic in philosophy as a whole, and Objectivism in particular, it's this emphasis on arguing over the *meanings of words*, rather than arguing over propositions, plans or statements. It's resulted in centuries of very bad arguments."

But Daniel, dear boy, this is precisely the point: Objectivism (which hasn't been around for centuries) insists that the meaning of words, properly identified, is an integral part of "propositions, plans & statements." There is no meaning-of-words/validity-of-propositions dichotomy. Propositions consist of words; if the propositions are to be reality-based, then so too must be the words of which they consist. Regi's (& all other pseudo-Objectivist rationalists' epistemological sin) is that they ascribe meanings that are *not* reality-based to words. So the problem is not the business of assigning meaning to words per se; it's the particular way in which *they* do it. They question-beg - set up an issue in such a way that its resolution must inevitably, via their pseudo-logic, lead to their pre-determined conclusions. Alec described their modus operandi very eloquently. The homosexuality debate was the perfect example.

If you truly think "pedantry" is endemic to Objectivism, properly defined, or is any part of Objectivism *at all*, read Rand's excoriation of analytic philosophy!

Linz
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 11/29, 2:57am)

Post 84

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 6:27am

The only thing of value I got from Regi was the fact that I learned that Perigo is Portuguese for danger. Go figure. His articles on Mr. Danger overwhelmingly reek of ametuer straw-man arguments. However, it's time to discuss more important subjects, namely� ME!

Adam

Post 85

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:12am

Nice of you to suggest that the discussion now turn to me, Adam.

Barbara

Post 86

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:38am

Adam B: "However, it's time to discuss more important subjects, namely� ME!"

Adam, I'm reliably informed your chances of being talked about would be greatly improved if you submitted a photo of yourself. Can't remember which little birdie told me that, but her description of your ... photogenicity ... was glowing! :-)

Linz

Post 87

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 1:37pm

I must say that I am truly appalled after more thoroughly reading the suggestions on Regi's site of a conspiracy on the part of the Brandens to hijack Objectivism. Now I see what Barbara meant by "nuts"--in response to Regi's claim of never attacking someone.

A thorough discussion of the effects of Nathaniel and Barbara awaits some future thread, so I don't want to get into that, especially since I'm enormously impatient with those who believe they've betrayed Rand, as well as quite opinionated about the implications of their often-asinine criticisms (e.g., that Barbara psychologized in a freakin' BIOGRAPHY).

I was just wondering about the appalling ignorance of the Regi (and Hsieh) camp, regarding the history of this whole thing. Are they completely unaware--when they speak of a conspiring tag-team of terror--that Barbara and Nathaniel had a feud after the publication of Judgment Day, until its co-edited revision?

This is, of course, in addition to all the other appalling things I've read "over there."

Alec

Post 88

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 3:20pm

I was going to echo Jeremy in welcoming Regi back, but it looks like I'm too late. Oh well. Given the general sentiment toward him, I suppose it was for the best.

However, I do frequent Regi's site and I want to point out that Regi never argued that there was a conspiracy by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden to distort Objectivism. He just believes that their ideas on Objectivism are mistaken. I am not sure where arguing strongly against the beliefs and ideas of someone (or an organization) goes from an argument to an attack. If you ask me, there was less than ideal behavior on both sides.

Post 89

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 6:11pm

even people who do know what the Brandens are, they have no idea how much influence they have, or how they are colluding with people like SOLO to take over Objectivism and set themselves up as the final authorities and on some bastardized form of that philosophy.

-- Reginald Firehammer, on the thread of his article, "Efficient versus Right Thinking"

This is just one of several examples, others of which include developments of the idea that the Brandens are trying to set themselves up as a "final authority." Not only is that absurd, it is paranoid--as if two individuals are going to outlast Ayn Rand's estate. Of course, if the ortho-Objectivists prove so intellectually castrated by their rigidity that they never produce any substantive histories of Ayn Rand, and all that ever exists on the bookshelves are the books by Barbara and Nathaniel, well then that would speak for itself, wouldn't it.

Another thing. "People like SOLO"? What the hell is that? SOLO is a website, hosting divergent viewpoints. There were at least as many, if not more, disagreements and/or criticisms of Nathaniel Branden on the interview threads, as there were agreements. And Nathaniel, to my knowledge, knows nothing about SOLO.

Alec

Post 90

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 9:28pm

Linz writes:
>But Daniel, dear boy, this is precisely the point: Objectivism (which hasn't been around for centuries) insists that the meaning of words, properly identified, is an integral part of "propositions, plans & statements."

Ah. Now, what you are saying here seems perfectly commonsensical - perfectly commonsensical, but wrong, I think. Rather like the sun going round the earth is a perfectly commonsensical assumption - but wrong. For words themselves are vague, inherited, borrowed, adapted, ambiguous creatures, layered in history and subjectivity (and I don't mean this in a bad way - as I've said before, this is not a bug but a feature). On top of this, trying to define them too tightly creates two quite clear logical stalemates, both of which I've belaboured in the past, though apparently to little effect...;-)

So, because of the above reasons, and others, arguments about the meanings of words get bogged down quickly. However, things can be improved greatly by formulating these vague creatures into far sharper things like *problems*, and/or proposals plans etc. For these can be examined and criticised far more clearly and easily than meanings, which require ever-vaguer defining terms. That's why pedants and phoneys avoid them like the plague, and stick to "playing with words" rather than come out and propose to *do* anything about their banal bigotries... Unfortunately, this Aristotelian briar patch not only provides convenient cover for the phoneys, but often entangles the best and brightest too, who think they have solved real problems with merely verbal solutions.

As Objectivism is based on Aristotle's essentialism, it is prone to this verbalist problem, as is analytic philosophy. I've cited it before, but at the risk of being boring one of the best examples of a purely verbal solution a real problem is Rand's proposed solution to the measurement problem in the IOE. Here she simply uses the phrase "absolutely precisely" instead of "roughly" - and considers the philosophical problem solved!

>They question-beg - set up an issue in such a way that its resolution must inevitably, via their pseudo-logic, lead to their pre-determined conclusions.

Uh-huh. That's the Scholastic modus operandi, and I think it is the inevitable result of adopting dear old Aristotle's essentialist method. Firehammer, Stolyarov etc are just singularly egregious examples.

- Daniel

Post 91

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:22pm

Um, I thought we were discussing me. ;)

I've tried sending a jpeg as an attachment to admin@solohq.com many months ago and guess it must have not gotten through. If there's another way to upload a photo, I'd like to know. I must say that little birdie is right, I do look quite dashing. While I'm on the subject of uploading and what not, is there a way that I could sell mp3's of my own work on this site for download? Just email me at pianoman@siu.edu if you want more info.

As for the Potyist, Regibald Icyhummer, Mr. G 'I am" Stonyakoff, and the rest of them (why yes I do have the vocabulary of a third grader, but only when it comes to blatant nincompoopery) there are way too many logical fallacies commited in their articles to merit much discussion. Also, to say that the Nathaniel and Barbara are trying to take over Objectivism is so blatantly laughable that Dave Letterman should come up with some type of top ten list for it. Though both do take an interest in the non-Orthodox movement, they have no monopoly. In fact, nobody does. Reason, truth, reality, and philosophy cannot be monopolized. They belong to those who make use of them. Enough said.

Adam

Post 92

Monday, November 29, 2004 - 11:52pm

Adam - send it again. It may have got lost. Or Joe might have been jealous of your beauty.

Daniel - Rand & Aristotle *differ* on the above matters in a way I thought you'd be aware of.

Linz

Post 93

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 1:57am

Linz wrote:
>Daniel - Rand & Aristotle *differ* on the above matters in a way I thought you'd be aware of.

Well, Linz, I am certainly no expert on these matters, so it is quite possible I am mistaken. Obviously Rand did not believe in Aristotle's Plato-lite "essences" etc, having whipped up her own version of conceptualism. But if she ignored his conclusions, she certainly adopted the big A's methodology wholesale, albeit for her own ends. In doing so, however, I think she's unwittingly lumbered herself with all his methodological snafus - and which Regi et al throw into sharp relief.

That's why when Alec writes:
"(Regi's) method is the very ortho-Objectivist one of wordplay"

...he's absolutely right, no? Regi's method is *ortho*-Objectivist, not anti- or non-Objectivist. It's just the standard operating procedure, the orthodox method writ large. The good get all caught up in it, the bad take refuge in it. If you ask me - and no-one did...;-) - Objectivism's adoption of the Aristotelian method needs a major rethink.

Now, Adam, back to the subject of you...;-)

- Daniel

Post 94

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 2:32am

Although I disagree with pretty much everything Daniel said, there's one point that I want to focus on, and it was originally Alec's point. Alec said (about Regi) "He supports his arguments by setting up logical structures of premises that involve narrowly-, conveniently-, self-defined terms--whose definitions result in Regi's conclusion--but which bear no resemblance to reality and truth."

The problem is not that he uses narrowly, convenient definitions that he came up with himself. If that were the case, it would be a little confusing, but you could see past the definitions to the concepts he's referring to. In my first encounter with Regi, he defined "philosophy" to be only that which is true. So by his definition, there couldn't be "bad philosophy" because it isn't philosophy. In another thread he defined marriage in a way that basically meant being deeply in love with someone, regardless of the legal situation. These are, I think, the kind of examples that Alec was referring to.

So you could make a case that his own self-made definitions cause confusion and hurt the chances of communication. Any redefining of a term can have that affect. But that's not really a problem in itself, because once defined, both sides can stick to it.

The real problem is that Regi than jumps between the conventional definition and his new self-made one. That is, he equivocates. He argues everyone should get married (legal sense) because marriage is good (being in love is good). He argues that subjectivism is not a philosophy (fundamental premise of your world view), by saying that it's not philosophy (that which is true). He does the same thing in the homosexuality debates, using "normal" to mean common, and to mean appropriate (moral). He says things like "Anyone can be free if they choose", intentionally switching to a meaning of 'free' that means whatever you can do secretly and not get caught.

That's the real problem. It's not a flaw in concepts in general or Objectivist Epistemology, as Daniel suggests. It is...should I say it?...a perversion of Objectivism. It's not narrowly defining a concept, but referring to two completely different concepts, and equating them because they have the same name. It has nothing to do with Objectivism. And it has nothing to do with the alleged problem Daniel is discussing. It's just Regi being Regi.

Post 95

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 7:11am

Daniel,

I agree with you but I think essentialism is only a part of the problem. Essentialism is not too bad (I think its limitations are well known), but one needs a fundamentally Critical Realist and empirical outlook to make it work.

The real problem is that Objectivists try to speculate about how things work based on how they have defined them and have no problem bringing ideological motivations into their analysis without seeing that one can reasonably agree with their ideological analysis.

Real sciences operate under the belief that correct and better theories should be able to make finer and more accurate predictions about phenomena, all other things being equal. That's why testability is so important, and I think that because so many Objectivists do not have a proper concept of how to test their ideas, they fall too easily into rationalism.

Post 96

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:25pm

Joe writes:
>But that's not really a problem in itself, because once defined, both sides can stick to it.

But this is *exactly* the problem - or at least one of them. As Alec says, Regi chooses a definition that suits his argument, and thus renders that argument immune to criticism - he'll just say your definition is invalid according to the facts of reality or whatever.

Let's look at how the options play out. "Sticking to" his definition actually means letting him set the terms of the debate, and guaranteeing his conclusion in advance. On the other hand, *disagreeing* with his defintion leads to a separate argument over the meaning of words, and into a number of regresses (for example, into even vaguer defining terms) and logical stalemates. And so the discussion gets sidetracked into a rats nest of preliminaries, where it is quietly choked to death before it even starts (which is just fine by the pedants!). So either way you slice it, the method is counter-productive.

So I don't think the problem is a result of a "perversion". As Alec says, and most have seemed to agree with, Firehammer's method itself seems "very ortho-Objecivist". Rand does exactly the same thing with "selfishness", "altruism" etc, either making up her own definition or using only a definition that suits the thrust of her argument. While I admire the rhetorical originality of her style - her line of attack is highly imaginative - the problem is that it ultimately produces only verbal solutions to real philosophical problems.

Joe:
>It's not narrowly defining a concept, but referring to two completely different concepts, and equating them because they have the same name...It's just Regi being Regi.

This is a separate point, but bottom line: at any one time, Firehammer is confused on any number of different levels...;-) Being nuts is like that.

- Daniel

Post 97

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 2:31pm

Next wrote:
>Essentialism is not too bad (I think its limitations are well known),

If only!...;-)

- Daniel

Post 98

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 3:08pm

Daniel, I think you've missed my point. Not surprising, considering your history. Maybe something more abstract will help you?

What happens if word A. But A has two meanings. One is A.real, which is what people normally mean. And one is A.regi, which is some ridiculous straw man he uses. If Regi then did the following:

If A.x, then B.
A.x
therefore B

It would be valid, right? That is, if he used the same definition. Rules of logic, and all that.

But what Regi does is:

If A.real, then B
A.regi
Therefore B.

Or feel free to switch the A.real with the A.regi.

Let's take an example. Marriage, which he defines as being in love, but is actually a legal institution.

If marriage (you are in love), then you'll be happy with the other person.
marriage (legal institution)
therefore you'll be happy with the other person.

That's why his arguments are invalid, not because he uses a definition. If he stuck with his definition throughout, you would realize that marriage as a legal institution doesn't mean you'll be happy with the other person, and you'd disagree.

Get it? So sticking to his definitions doesn't give him a victory, like you think. It would actually undo him. That is, if you always focus on what the words represent, not just the words. If you just focus on the words, then word-play is all you'll ever get. Your big problem with Objectivism is that you think that's what we do, no matter how often people say it's not. Obviously that debate is not going anywhere. The only point I'm trying to make here is that Regi's word-play is not a part of Objectivism at all...it's a violation of the epistemology. And the solution for it, the means by which we can clearly see why it's a mistake, is because of Objectivist epistemology. We can keep our focus on the referents of a concept, instead of the word, and that keeps us reality oriented and resistant to these word-play games.

Post 99

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 3:18pm