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 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 8:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I am curious about the detractor thing. I did not read anyone detracting Joe, much less keeping score. I read people disagreeing with his oversimplified position that the relationship between Barbara's mother and her was based on distrust (because Barbara screwed up) and this was the point of the conflict. They saw the point elsewhere and in other values.

To be a detractor, one would have to accuse him of rationalizing, lacking reading comprehension skills, having a concrete bound mentality and so forth. I did not read anyone doing that.

Michael

Post 61

Friday, January 26, 2007 - 8:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

However, death and dying is an important topic and it necessarily brings up issues that require compassion and some exception making.
I think we're talking past each other (ie. I feel misunderstood). If I do, like Joe, make exception and agree in the compassion of a deathbed lie (and I am) -- then where's the problem?

Ed


Post 62

Friday, January 26, 2007 - 9:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

To detract is "to diminish the importance, value, or effectiveness of something."

One could say that the original detractor was Barbara who, in writing this piece, inadvertantly immortalized a mere "expediency" (e.g. damage control, managing the mess, etc) -- as the culmination of a life-long relationship with another. One could say that the 2nd detractor was Joe, who took issue with this questionable immortalization. Then one could say that a whole slew of you guys (see previous posts) were detractors, taking issue with Joe taking issue. And finally, I take issue with you guys taking issue with Joe.

We're all detracting against something, Michael -- it's natural and normal. To be for something is to be against its opposite.

Ed


Post 63

Friday, January 26, 2007 - 11:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I think we are talking past each other to a certain extent. We both agree on all of the actions that would be taken in this scenario and why. We disagree on the importance of this article and whether its emphasis is properly placed.

In fact, in most of these kinds of issues I prefer Joe's approach. The reason we uphold honesty as a virtue and value consistency in it is to establish and buttress the principle of being true to reality. If we make too many exceptions, we degrade the currency of honesty with a caveat that says under normal conditions only. So to a certain degree we are on our honor. 

So the remaining question is whether this article has to something to say worth immortalizing. To me, the value of the article was as a signpost that says:  Stop, Look and Listen. The message of the article is that we can never stop thinking and feeling, even in the face of virtues and principles that are sacrosanct. The danger is that we will act reflexively on prior knowledge and do something we might regret and can never take back.

Jim


Post 64

Friday, January 26, 2007 - 12:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

To me, the value of the article was as a signpost that says:  Stop, Look and Listen. The message of the article is that we can never stop thinking and feeling, even in the face of virtues and principles that are sacrosanct.
I believe you, James -- that this is the value of the article for you. I even agree that the message to "Stop, Look and Listen" so that we galvanize ourselves to "never stop thinking and feeling, even in the face of ..." is correct insofar as it goes. I just don't get that same message. Instead, the article reminds me about the moral about removing a fly from your friend's forehead with a hatchet.

p.s. And though we may take away different things from the same article, we're both reasonable men -- just men with non-identical information sets and current psychological needs/desires. And that's something that is okay.

Ed


Post 65

Friday, January 26, 2007 - 12:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

p.s. And though we may take away different things from the same article, we're both reasonable men -- just men with non-identical information sets and current psychological needs/desires. And that's something that is okay.
Agreed :-).  I will agree with Joe that we have to be extremely careful about exceptions to principles and only very rarely should we grant them legitimacy. We should try to deal with universals when we can in philosophy so that we don't lapse into subjectivism.

Jim



Post 66

Friday, January 26, 2007 - 7:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Your original post has been edited, so now I am not sure, but I could have sworn that your original post contained things like "Joe's detractors," etc. Now there is only "detractors."

I might be mistaken, so I will let it be.

For the record, I do not see disagreement with an interpretation as setting oneself up as a detractor of the person. I saw no intention by anyone to "diminish the importance, value, or effectiveness of" Joe as a person or intellectual by disagreeing with his interpretation. That was the point I was making in my previous post.

Technically, I suppose, people have "detracted" against his interpretation, but I find outright "disagreement" a stronger and clearer word. I certainly disagree. If I had said I "detract against his interpretation," then stated my reasons, that would have sounded really weird to my ear.

But even when the word "disagree" was not used in people's posts, the concept of disagreement with the interpretation—not belittlement of the person—was very clear.

Michael

Post 67

Friday, January 26, 2007 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

Regarding whether you initially saw a different wording of my original post (ie. before an edit), I would find that hard to believe.

If you look at the time of the post (7:57pm), and the time of the edit (7:58pm) -- then it's clear that you would have had to have refreshed your browser AFTER the time of my post during the minute: "7:57pm" and BEFORE the time of my edit during the minute: "7:58pm." And what are the odds of THAT? At any rate, I only recall editing for spacing (not content). 

;-)

And, regarding the detracting, I never meant it personal (though I sense, via a modicum of astuteness, that you did ...).

Ed


Post 68

Friday, January 26, 2007 - 8:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Astuteness? Nah.

The oversight in me not looking at the time-stamp, and the impression I received from the overkill in your use of the word "detractor," all probably came from me rationalizing, lacking reading comprehension skills, having a concrete bound mentality and so forth...

//;-)

Michael

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 10:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

... the overkill in your use of the word "detractor" ...
And if I had used "outright disagreers" in place of "detractors" every time, then it wouldn't have been "overkill" -- right?

You could agree with me using "disagreement" several times in one post, couldn't you? Just not "detractor" several times -- right?

;-)

Ed


Post 70

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 12:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, Michael:

     This disagreement about your disagreements with each other (and Joe) are seguing into detractions. Such can appear very detracting to both of you, as well as to your disagreements and whatever detractions seem to appear. (Hmmm...can a 'detracting' itself be considered a detraction apart from it's subject?)

     Can't we all just...stay 'disagreeing'?  :)

LLAP
J:D


Post 71

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 4:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John asks the insightful question ...

... can a 'detracting' itself be considered a detraction apart from it's subject?
I think it can. I think that a misplaced level of detraction certainly detracts from the original detraction in mind. Misplaced levels of detraction is what I feel this thread, and its originating story -- are all about.

It's not wrong to detract, it's just wrong to detract wrongly (get that?).

;-)

Ed


Post 72

Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 10:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Dayaamm!

Are you detracting from my post?

(What's the score, anyway? //;-)

Michael

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 73

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 5:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

To consider differences between individuals, whether they be opinions or otherwise, as "detractions" seem profoundly non-individualistic to me. I was startled when you posted your "detractors" scorecard. I had not considered my posting of my individual point of view as a detraction but a reiteration of my understanding and admiration for Barbara's article.

I had a conversation recently with my 92 year old aunt who is failing. She probably doesn't have a lot of time left and she knows it. She has been a Mormon her entire life and believes in an afterlife and believes that when she dies she'll see her Mom and Dad, her husband and the infant girl she lost.

She asked me "Michael, don't you think you'll see your Mom and Dad again when you die?"

I said "No, I don't think so."

She said "Don't you believe the teachings you were taught in the Church?"

I said "God has never spoken to me so I have no faith. If I die and there is a God, then I'll believe."

She said "Well, I believe I'm going to see my Mom and Dad again."

I said "Okay Mom, I hope you do." [She helped raise me and I call her Mom].

I suppose I could have insisted there was no afterlife and no god and done my best to convert her to my profound atheistic views. That would have been "honest" but pointless. I am truly grateful to this women for taking me in as a child and I would like her dying to be as gentle as possible.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 9:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MSK, I stopped keeping score 20 posts ago.

;-)


Mike E.,

Joe spent serious time and energy speaking his peace. And, with the exception of Steve -- the only one who actually attempted a rational reconciliation with Joe's position -- folks "outright disagreed" or "detracted" if you will. You had talking points in post 55, yes. But they don't refer well to Joe's position. I had talking points of my own about this in post 58. For instance, you said this ...

"To insist on absolute "honesty" regardless of context or purpose or results seems robotic to me."

... and, in indirect rebuttal, I said this ...

I also don't have a problem with lying to someone who's going to die.
Bottom line:
Joe acknowledges the contextual nature of virtue -- as against a rationalist, Kantian, floating-abstraction "ideal" of moral action.
Now, granted, you had other points about intimacy and honor that I didn't go into -- but that's because they miss the point that Joe and I are addressing. I'm not trying to start a fight -- but to state a point (and be heard).

Mike, do you see that how you interacted with your aunt is fundamentally different from how Barbara acted with her mother? You could have lied to your aunt. You could have told her that you believed that you were going to see your folks when you die. You didn't. Why?

And here's another thing, if you actually had lied and said that you'd been visited by the Holy Spirit and that the Spirit talked to you and filled you with repentance and you were a True Believer (again?), then would you have shared those details HERE (ie. would you be "proud" enough about it)?

And the point about insisting to the woman that there's no afterlife (ie. about having a fucking, tooth-n-nail pissing contest with someone who's close to dying) is frankly absurd -- and yes, I'm detracting from this point of yours now. Who'd behave like that? I wouldn't do that. Joe wouldn't do that. And it's a straw man to even bring it up -- as if it was my or Joe's position (I dealt sufficiently with this point in post 58).

p.s. On a more gentle note now; my mom had (and sorely needed) a godmother whom we called "Grandma Mary." You see, us kids didn't get a chance to grow up with our real grandmas. One of my grandmas died before I could walk or talk, and the other one passed away early on in my youth.

So when you bring up the point about calling your aunt "Mom" -- it strikes a tender chord with me. Grandma Mary helped raise us kids (hell, she helped raise EVERYONE in the family!), and when she died it was pretty hard on all of us, particularly my mom and little sister. We were so grateful to have her in our lives. And we wished for nothing else than that when she passed away -- she'd go peacefully. Thinking about her can still make my eyes water.

Ed




Post 75

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 9:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
M. Erikson:

     One thing this thread has made me a bit clear on, 'Randite' that I am, re Rand's basic view of 'honesty': she made clear that she defines the virtue within a single-person framework. -- Logically-resulting implications to 'others' (aka re 'social ethics') is, to say the least, a bit ambiguous...and...that's talking about 'normal' situations where an anonymous (to *you*) person asks you if X is home (or "Where is 'X'?"), or, a 'friend'/acquaintence asks over-the-boundary personal questions about you, or, her, expecting you to bare all, else, you're 'dis-honest.'

LLAP
J:D


Post 76

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 9:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
M.E: Addendum...

     THIS thread goes w-a-y past that ambiguous territory. It deals with one who is superficially NOT in a 'life-boat' situation re how they are-to/'should' deal with one who obviously IS in that 'boat.' It's one thing to 'rock-the-boat'; it's another to rock someone else's LIFE-(of-the-moment)-boat. 'Ethically', it can be proper to let someone know that, yes, they are dying; can be! Definitely not always is; indeed, I'd say rarely, depending on what one knows about the other; if one knows nothing, don't operate from a dogmatic mis-interpretation of 'honesty'-to-others, I say.

LLAP
J:D


Post 77

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 9:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
M.E: Final Addendum on this, as I regard it, totally unnecessary 'debate.'

     An 'Objectivist' who would answer a pediatric cancer-ward kid, or hospice geriatric, or accident-crisis-situation victim-bleeding-their-guts-out, automatically, if asked by them if they're gonna die, with the response of anything equivalent to "Yes; you're obviously going to die before the hour/day/week's done", all in the name of supposed O-ist 'honesty' is a sicko whom Rand would call 'pathologically dogmatic in their rationalism.'

      In short: allow a 'lifeboat-situation' Judgement Call to be so, without 'Monday-Morning Quarterbacking', hmmm?

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 1/28, 10:07pm)


Post 78

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 10:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, Mike:

     Now you got me wondering if my post on 'detraction' re you both, was not so much an observation of your clearly detracting disagreements with each on when who was detracting (apart from the original accusations of detractions) the other in one's disagreements, but, if such a posted observation of mine falls into the exact same category as I accuse you both of. In short, was my post a 'detraction'? I wasn't exactly 'disagreeing' with either of you, so...

     Now, I feel in a worse state: distracted. You guys are like 2 Siamese-Fighting Fish. Jeeez...

LLAP
J:D


Post 79

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 10:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
All: Last 'elucidation' on this...subject (well, for a while, anyways.)
      M.E: No post of mine was intended as decrying ('detracting'?) anything you said. At all times I typed 'you' I was really speaking generally to all readers; definitely not *you*, though I was responding to points of your posts. You gave a really good post on personal experiences(as Mike, Ed, and Barbara had.)
      I frameworked my posted-views in term of dealing with others unknown to one; re those 'known', it's quite Un-Ethical/IMmoral to try to convert a dying person or even accentuating a belief-difference 'twixt them and you. Live and let (while they can) live.

LLAP
J:D


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


User ID Password or create a free account.