Joe,
I am preparing a lengthier response to Linz (actually it is almost written, but I want to edit it to make sure it is tight). I will deal with his mischaracterization of my ideas there.
Just let me state here for the record that I did not write an article strictly on appeasement, I do not condone appeasement as a moral virtue, I did not state nor do I believe that Rand supported appeasement as a moral virtue (nor did her heroes) and the attempt to pigeonhole me that way was misguided at best. More coming on that.
There are a couple of issues you raised here that I was addressing there, but since you raised them here, let's deal with them.
OUTLINE
First, though, unfortunately I found your outline of my article a bit of a hodgepodge and frankly it came off as done without a real interest in understanding what I was saying. More of discharging an unpleasant duty. Here is another outline.
1. Introduction -
a. Innocence of child approach.
b. Unthinking preconception of Objecivists when religious principles are mentioned turning off newcomers before they understand Objectivism.
c. Mention that similarities to traditional religious principles are present in Rand's works.
d. Quote from Rand stating that good is to be found in many religious principles - her fundamental issue was with faith versus reason.
e. Possibility of arriving at a different rhetorical approach with religious people.
2. How I came about the idea of applying strategy and tactics to moral principles:
a. Prescott parody, which stated that ALL Objectivists ideas are the reverse of traditional ones (obvious exaggeration).
b. Musing on "turn the other cheek," checking out a Rand quote on pacifism and arriving at a definition of the principle based on popular meaning (not retaliating against aggression).
c. Watkins quote, stressing the need for overall moral principle before calculations, leading to thinking about strategy and tactics.
d. Quote from Rand showing that ethical principles are guides to action based on getting/keeping values.
e. Example from chess, showing which two types of action are available in terms of scope (strategy and tactics).
3. Examination of what "turning the other cheek" means in terms of strategy and tactics.
a. Original quotes from the Bible on "turning the other cheek," with conclusion that no real use was originally specified.
b. Personal story from childhood showing how "turning the other cheek" fails miserably as a strategy (thus as an overall moral principle).
c. Three examples from Rand showing how not retaliating in kind ("turning the other cheek" as understood popularly) was used by her heroes as a tactic to get and/or preserve other moral values - (1) Roark's refusal to appeal the sentence to preserve his integrity, (2) Galt (even going so far as to help his destroyers) to demonstrate his contempt for the unthinking, and (3) D'Anconia not reacting to Rearden's slap because of the tremendous value he held for Rearden.
4. Conclusion.
a. Showing similarities between Objectivist works and traditional principles is a good way to make a listener new to Objectivist ideas not hostile - it breaks the ice.
b. "Turning the other cheek" only works as a tactic, and then only some of the time.
There. That certainly looks a lot better.
STYLE OF WRITING
Now about my style of writing, which you find inappropriate. These days I am really studying up on psycho-epistemology for another article. Did you know that Rand wrote quite a bit about this? I hadn't realized how much until I went into it, as it is strung out throughout her essays. (This word is not found in her fiction, although the concept is.)
Linz mentioned that my dramatic manner of anticipating the hostile charge of those who would disagree was a good tactic - and that it fooled the posters, which is why they liked my article. I strongly disagree. (I don't even play that way - gross manipulation - and I wouldn't know how to start.)
I have another theory about why many posters liked my article. It has a lot to do with psycho-epistemology and style. In my studies I was delighted to see it apply to myself. Here is what Rand said in “Art And Sense Of Life,” The Romantic Manifesto.
“’Style’ is a particular, distinctive or characteristic mode of execution. An artist's style is the product of his own psycho-epistemology—and, by implication, a projection of his view of man's consciousness, of its efficacy or impotence, of its proper method or level of functioning.”
The style that I have chosen for my posts and for that particular article is a more conversational style. I have held the strong belief that all complex ideas can be expressed simply in simple language. Obviously more technical language is needed as the detailing of the complexities increases, but the core ideas should be able to be understood by the average person, not just an academic specialist. It is really hard to write simply and clearly. Try it sometime.
What delighted me was to see that this style completely reflects that little kid in me, the one who always says the emperor has no clothes on. I state simple truths simply and entertainingly. My style of writing reflects all that. This is completely consistent with my own psycho-epistemology. (Look at facts without preconceptions first, then evaluate.)
That is why I believe that many people liked my article. They could understand it easily Not because I tricked them and headed them off at the pass.
I'm sorry you don't like that style, though. It happens to be my voice - my chosen voice based on my chosen beliefs.
Do you want to change the world? Then learn how to talk to people in a manner that they can understand. Rand did it. She wrote fiction.
LEFTOVER ISSUES FROM THE ADDICTION ARTICLE
Now the last issue is with the addiction stuff. Our whole difficulty in communication was that I wrote an article on psychology and you were evaluating it from the point of view of philosophy. More Rand quotes here, from The Psychology of "Psychologizing," The Objectivist, March 1971:
As a science, psychology is barely making its first steps. It is still in the anteroom of science, in the stage of observing and gathering material from which a future science will come. This stage may be compared to the pre-Socratic period in philosophy; psychology has not yet found a Plato, let alone an Aristotle, to organize its material, systematize its problems and define its fundamental principles.
(...)
The task of evaluating the processes of man's subconscious is the province of psychology. Psychology does not regard its subject morally, but medically—i.e., from the aspect of health or malfunction (with cognitive competence as the proper standard of health).
(...)
An individual's consciousness, as such, is inaccessible to others; it can be perceived only by means of its outward manifestations. It is only when mental processes reach some form of expression in action that they become perceivable (by inference) and can be judged. At this point, there is a line of demarcation, a division of labor, between two different sciences.
The task of evaluating the processes of man's subconscious is the province of psychology. Psychology does not regard its subject morally, but medically—i.e., from the aspect of health or malfunction (with cognitive competence as the proper standard of health).
The task of judging man's ideas and actions is the province of philosophy.
A man who has psychological problems is a conscious being; his cognitive faculty is hampered, burdened, slowed down, but not destroyed...
(...)
If a man's consciousness is hampered by malfunction, it is the task of a psychologist to help him correct it—just as it is the task of a doctor to help correct the malfunction of a man's body.
Think about these quotes in the context of my article.
Let me state unequivocally that, philosophically speaking, all issues of consciousness involve volition, even addiction. Psychologically speaking, a consciousness can become diseased, including the contamination of his sense of identity and impairment of his faculty of volition. The psychologist's task to help correct that.
Does that make sense to you? It sure does to me.
Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/26, 8:11pm)
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/26, 8:37pm)
|
