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 20

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No Robert, this predates shrek by years. I'll post it when I get a second.

Ethan


Post 21

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 9:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here it is:

Kragar says that life is like an onion, but he doesn’t mean the same thing by it that I do.

 

  He talks about peeling it, and how you can go deeper and deeper, until you get to the center and nothing is there. I suppose there’s truth in that, but in the years when my father ran a restaurant, I never peeled an onion, I chopped them; Kragar’s analogy doesn’t do much for me.

 

  When I say life is like an onion, I mean this: If you don’t do anything with it, it goes rotten. So far, that’s no different from other vegetables. But when an onion goes bad, it can do it either from the inside or the outside. So, sometimes you get one that looks good, but the core is rotten. Other times you can see a bad spot on it, but if you cut that out, the rest is fine. Taste’s sharp, but that’s what you paid for, isn’t it?

 

 Dzurlords like to fancy themselves pantry chefs who go around cutting the rotten parts out of onions. Trouble is, they generally can’t tell the good from the bad. Dragonlords are good at finding bad spots, but when they find one they like to throw out the whole barrelful. A Hawklord will find a bad spot every time. He’ll watch you cook the thing, and eat it, and he’ll nod his head sagaciously when you spit it out again. If you ask why he didn’t tell you about it, he’ll look startled and say, “you didn’t ask.”

 

Yendi By Steven K.Z. Brust

 

I try not to be a Dragonlord.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 9:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That's the red herring here. Michael's article wasn't about appeasement, at least not how I read it.
 
But it wasn't about "New Age," (whatever was being hung on that, there's too many choices to be sure) either. Your point?

I thought the article was about wisdom, and the grace that comes with it. Couldn't possibly be that simple, though, could it?

rde
Never slept under a $%^# pyramid, probably never will.




Post 23

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 9:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Errr my point? I agree with Michael's article. Didn't I make that clear?

Post 24

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah, you sure did... me too.

rde
What's it all about, Alfie?


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Let's hide Objectivism and pretend Ayn Rand never existed or is obsolete. What a tribute! I'd rather bash Ayn Rand than toss her into a barrel of molasses.

--Brant


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I personally understood Michael' article "To turn or not to turn the other cheek"
to mean:
"  Hey Dude--I am not afraid of you at all."
Ciro.
 
 
 


Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 10:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> I sanctioned both (both Michael's essay & this criticism of it) -- time (and thought) will tell which one is more in the right. At the moment, I'm swayed by the reasoning of sir Linz. [Ed]

Your mistake is in choosing either one as if they were diametrically opposed. The problem is that Michael's whole argument lacks precision so it is not entirely clear what he is for or against across the board. And Linz's article immediately assumes the worst in the most horrendous possible cases, the literal meaning of "turn the other cheek" in instances of physical force [raped my girlfriend? go ahead do it again]. Which was clearly not Michael's intention, when he takes up the entire middle of his essay with an example from his own childhood of when he now believes "turning the other cheek" was NOT justified in an instance of dealing with a brute, with an assault, physical force.

Here's the problem: Michael, I'm sorry, you wrote a fuzzy and imprecise essay latching onto a very bad, loaded Christian phrase which on the one hand seems to advocate using a soft-sell, not using force in cases like Gandhi or ML King when it's a bad tactic. It seems to be applicable to defusing *non-force* type situations with moral, non-brutal people. Such as in conversation or "flame wars". But on the other hand you never clearly discuss this in any depth so we have to guess...and you use, undigested, the Christian phrase "turn the other cheek" which has a very different package of meanings.

The problem is your essay was fuzzy and imprecise on what you do and do not defend - and thus contains, if not contradictions at least a lack of intellectual precision and clear-cut definition. And Linz's essay assumed the worst and goes off on a long, angry tirade which seems to be unfair to your (confused or contradictory) intent.

Moral:

1. Neither essay was very good.

2. Rip them up and start over, both of you.

3. MSK, LP and others: don't start another long, rambling thread of a million posts debating "appeasement", "retaliation", "turn the other cheek" using your own meanings while ignoring what others (Christian texts, MSK's essay, Linz, Rand, etc.) mean or the examples they use

Philip Coates

Post 28

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 10:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I will grant that the choice of "turning the other cheek" is a bad one on Michael's part. I still got what I beleive he was saying though.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 11:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fraser,

The responses of Ross, Robert W, Robert D, and Jody speak to my mature position on this matter.

Phil,

==============
> I sanctioned both (both Michael's essay & this criticism of it) -- time (and thought) will tell which one is more in the right. At the moment, I'm swayed by the reasoning of sir Linz. [Ed]

Your mistake is in choosing either one as if they were diametrically opposed. The problem is that Michael's whole argument lacks precision [Phil]
==============

Diametric opposition is not needed Phil, comparative evaluation is -- and this is true of most of the things in the world. And even if it is the case that you are "more in the right" than I here, well then it is not time (and thought) but context -- which will determine which essay is applicably, or operationally, more in the right.

To doubt that 1 of 2 essays is, or could even be, more in the right -- is to deny moral evaluation altogether (of the action taken, not the person as a being!). Saying that one essay is "indeterminate" does not, in my opinion, preclude operational judgment of value. This kind of thinking leads to "multi-valued logics." If Michael's essay is indeterminate, then it is of less operational value -- as compared to Linz' essay:

=============
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything. -- Confucius
=============

Ed

Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 11:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Presicion is important Ed, especially in language. One thing is clear to me from reading Michael's article though, he wasn't suggesting that turning the other cheek is good. It was certainly a poor choice. Lindsay's article is a full-force attack on turning the other cheek, and makes' clear that's not Objectivism's position. Fine. It does seem to imply that Michael's article was a full on defnese of turning the other cheek and appeasement, which it certainly wasn't. This paragraph here:

Now, I can’t recall Rand’s ever commenting specifically on turn-the-other-cheek, but I think we can glean a pretty good idea of what she thought of it from the quotation I’m about to cite on appeasement. I’ll preface it with exactly the same gospel excerpts Michael quotes on cheek-turning, so we may observe the two ethicists back-to-back. Note, I am not here concerned with whether Jesus meant something other than he appears to mean. I’m taking cheek-turning to mean exactly what Michael took it to mean in his youth. “You want to strike this cheek? Go ahead. Then I’ll present the other one for your kind attentions.” “You want Sudetenland, Herr Hitler? Hell, we’ll give you Poland as well!” “Good job on the Twin Towers, guys. If you wanna take a crack at the Empire State Building next, we’ll stand our military down to make it easier for ya.” “Rape my girlfriend, you say? Be my guest. If once doesn’t satisfy you—bang her again.”


Is a fairly scathing attack on something that I just did not read in Michael's article. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Michael did mean that. He can explain when he gets his internet connection back. This type of equivication between what Michael was saying and Hitler for example rub me the wrong way. IF Michael did mean what Linz is suggesting, then I'll sanction Linz's article and proclaim it great. Until then I'm saying what I read and what Linz read when reading the article seem to be two different things. That's all.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 10/25, 12:09pm)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 12:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good response, Ethan.

I really like how you explained your suspense of judgment -- by waiting for Michael's reply! This is a gross oversight on my part. Why did I not wait for Michael to respond? Why did I assume the position of judge, jury, and executioner (before even letting Michael take the stand)? After all, what he'd have had to say may have just cleared the air enough to make his essay clearly point to a real human value! [slaps self on wrist -- Superego: "Do better next time, mmkay?" Ego: "Okay, sure, that's not hard, and it gains me more value!"]

Also, you mentioned that -- in language especially -- precision is important. I'd like to make this more precise: precision is not "inherently" important, accuracy is (context defines the appropriate level of precision). CS Pierce said that it's easy to be certain -- just be sufficiently vague (and then what you have to say will be 100% right!). Like intensity and duration in exercise, precision and accuracy are negatively correlated (if you get too precise for the context, you'll lose accuracy and make errors). The trick is to be as precise as you can while MAINTAINING accuracy (that's what makes for great philosophers).

For me, Michael's essay was not precise enough -- as a philosophical piece. It seems to me that it is something that might be published (as a letter) in a sociology journal -- where it would fit in better. In a sociology journal, as a letter, it would have more operational value than it does here. But, I'm now speculating again, without waiting for Michael to explain the end or value at which his essay was aimed [I'll shut up now ...]

Ed

Post 32

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael was talking about attitude, and the use of judgment, among other things. When he talked about hardsell vs. softsell, he was talking about presentation and interpersonal skills, among other things.

Now, one thing that means is that those who thrive on the "action," the rush that confrontation survives will not be presented with that opportunity as often, if others agree. They will have to find something else, and that makes conflict junkies unhappy. I consider that a personal problem, I barely can control my own behavior.  What it does not mandate is sacrificing virtuous principles. It might mean learning how to communicate, persuade and convince using means that are more civil (and smarter, if the goal of the negotiation is to win it).  We can go up Nathaniel Branden's ass all we want, but I challenge anyone to argue against his conclusion that the most important judgment that we make is the one we make upon ourselves. There is nothing harder to face, and it is foolish to think that that judgment does not affect how we treat others, much less judge them.

Are we preserving our memory of an era by preserving the style our mentors used during that time? Is that realistic? Did it work all that well in the first place, even in context? In our hindsight, do we truly see no opportunity for improvement?  Is it truly an "if ain't broke, don't fix it" situation?


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 1:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I do not agree with MSK all the time--and sometimes, his approach seems intellectually haphazard. But he is a pretty fine fellow with a fine disposition, nontheless. He is much more benevolent than some of the folks who like to hang around and pretend that trifles are monster moral failures, with denunciation for dessert.

I am not sure Linz read his article very carefully. I think Michael does a nice job of differentiating Christian turning of the cheek (no personal value) from an Objectivsit-acceptable cheek turning (decide the applicable moral principle, then decide what is the best course of action for you, individually).

I do not think Michael's article is new age wishy washy at all (he sometimes is elsewhere), and I appreciated his citation to AR and other Objectivist sources. I liked his article.

I liked Linz's, too, but Linz's article is NOT a response to what Michael wrote.

Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wrong, Scott, as are the other marshmallow-mush posts above. I've seldom felt more dismayed from reading SOLO. My article was a direct response to Michael's. Even allowing that the latter was rambling and confused, its essential thrust was clear enough. "Are religious principles like turning the other cheek really anti-Objectivism?" No, says Michael, yes say I. The example Michael gave from his own adolescence was an example of turning the other cheek; look where it got him. The hypotheticals I gave were examples also (the Hitler one was pretty close to what actually happened). Nothing Objectivist about them at all. The conduct by Roark and Galt that Michael claimed was cheek-turning was nothing of the sort, as I demonstrated.

This article was a softening-up for the touchy-feely "soft-sell" that is being urged upon us, with the implication that the only alternative is mouth-foaming hysteria (oh, and that clever little tactic/strategy distinction thrown in to confuse the gullible). In case I wasn't clear enough—won't happen on SOLO as long as I live and breathe.

Linz
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo
on 10/25, 2:24pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,

Did you miss the part where he showed how getting beaten up as a kid was an example of how not to turn the other cheek? I'll let Michael speak for himself on this, but my whole impression of this article was an attempt to show how one can engage theists on the subject of there moral teachings and show them what's wrong with them. Educate instead of vilify. Cut out the bad part of the onion, if its worth saving?

Ethan


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 2:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In his article Lindsay refers to a partial passage from the Christian holy books. The King James version of the bible has Jesus state in Luke 6:27-35:
 

27: But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28: Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29: And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
30: Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31: And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32: For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33: And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34: And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35: But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.


This is a stunning moral innovation. It basically seems to say mercy is morally higher and better than justice. It even seems to say that charity is better than merit, justice, and true morality and virtue. It essentially says: good is nothing -- good is evil.

Now this is true religion in my view. It isn't mere old-style mythology (from before reason, philosophy, and 600 BC) or even mystery cultism (from after 600 BC). This is monotheism and "god." It's also as evil as it gets or even can get. 


Post 37

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 2:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 I think it was in a book called GOD A BIOGRAPHY where I read the only interpretation of "turn the other cheek" that I liked. Basically the argument was that Jesus was not advocating altruism by saying this; the idea was that he was giving a weapon to the defenseless. When a Roman soldier abused his power, the argument goes, instead of trying to fight back, which would result in God knows what, the idea was to offer passive resistance to SHOW just how brutal the soldier was, a type of moral grandstanding. If one is truly that weak, it may be a viable strategy, but I certainly wouldn't advocate it as a rule.


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 3:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If the issue is efficacious propaganda and public education -- which is always far less important than self-improvement and private happiness -- then I think the hard-sell, soft-sell, Socratic dialog, and laid-back scholarly approach all work. You should choose the one which best fits your personality, education, mood, intent, etc. Also the one which best fits each situation and person/audience addressed. The key is: Is your propaganda really true, rational, and Objectivist? Also: Is it relevant and directly helpful? It also helps, naturally, to be skilled in rhetoric and persuasion.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan:

Linz,

Did you miss the part where he showed how getting beaten up as a kid was an example of how not to turn the other cheek?


Nope. Just makes his advocacy of cheek-turning all the more incomprehensible and unconscionable. (I refrained from commenting on the bizarre agnosticism as to what prompted his mother to go to the woods when she did, with God listed as one of the options.)

There is no way to turn the other cheek except to ... turn the other cheek. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that Michael's purported examples of Roark's & Galt's cheek-turning were nothing of the sort?

Now, you may wish to argue that in some instances it makes sense to create the appearance of cheek-turning, tactically, in order to facilitate a strategic objective. For instance, it's claimed that Chamberlain gave Hitler Sudetenland to buy time to rearm Britain for the war he knew by this time was inevitable. But if that's true, the "cheek-turning" is simply a ruse, not real cheek-turning at all; it's a prelude to long-overdue ass-kicking. And note, such a ruse, if that's what it was, (and I am not going to buy into a tangential, historical argument about this as some thread-hijacker would no doubt wish) would not have been necessary were it not for the cheek-turning and gaze-averting that had already gone on.

MSK is effectively enjoining us to say to Christians, "Don't bother about our being anti-cheek-turning. We're not. Objectivist heroes turn the other cheek all the time."

The hell they do. Again I ask, Cortlandt homes?

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


User ID Password or create a free account.