Tibor,
Please excuse my delay in responding to the challenge in your post to provide concrete examples. As I mentioned in my e-mail to you, I had other priorities to attend to. Anyway, just as a refresher and for the record, here is the content of your first post:
You quoted me from my article: "Here is what I have observed with many Objectivists. When a phrase becomes automated on a normative level and constantly used that way—i.e., when words like 'turn the other cheek' are given the meaning of actively implementing altruism and constantly used in this manner—over time, I see people start to deny the cognitive truth of the phrase's meaning when Rand is mentioned."
Then you added:
“Just at this point a few actual quotes from these ‘many Objectivists’ would be very helpful and probably serve to avoid any misunderstanding of the author's point. I mean not some imagined but concrete, actual examples, from a source the reader could, in principle, consult to see the full context, etc., etc.”
The very first thing I did was go back to my previous article, “To Turn or Not to Turn, a Question of Cheek,” and reread it and then read through the comments. (btw – I am extremely proud of that article.) Then I looked at Linz’s article, “This Cheek’s not for Turning” and looked at the comments.
I realized that the quotes you asked for were in abundance in all these places, but I had no wish to go back over them and rehash what to me was the obvious – especially seeing that it was a pretty good bet that a lot of hostility would crop up again if I cited specific posters. But this is certainly where you can find some of the “many Objectivists” I mentioned, Tibor – right there on the threads.
Let me simply state that I gave a non-normative definition to “turn the other cheek” (the physical act) in both my previous article and my present one, and the traditional Christian normative definition (altruism). In this abundance of hostile posts, and even in Linz’s article, my non-normative definition was “blanked-out.” My arguments were treated by the more hostile posters in two manners: (1) ignored, as if that non-normative definition of the act did not exist, or (2) an outright statement that the act did not exist independently of the Christian ideal if the words, “turn the other cheek” are used (or redefined to mean even something else, like “appeasement” for instance).
A few posters on the present thread have even engaged this second manner. But both manners are “cognitive blank-outs” as they deny what exists. The normative is kept, though. It is kept in spades. In both cases it has been hotly proclaimed that the Christian ideal is the only definition that exists for those particular words and that Rand did not, repeat, did not endorse the Christian ideal.
Of course, it makes no difference whatsoever that I stated very clearly that Rand has never endorsed that particular Christian ideal. Once I said that she used the act when it suited her dramatic needs, “act” was blanked-out and “ideal” was substituted in these posters’ minds. (There were some variations, like a recent arbitrary extension to include “concrete bound mentality” and so forth, but the arguments all boiled down to the non-existence of the cognitive for the “forbidden” words.)
Just so that I don’t have to rehash a lot of acrimony, let me not quote a Solo poster, but quote Diana Hsieh instead (the “famous” quote from her).
From Diana Hsieh’s Noodlefood blog
“More recently, I was happy to see him [Linz] kicking ass in response to an awful article claiming that Ayn Rand was actually a fan of the Christian ideal of turning the other cheek. (It's author, Michael Stuart Kelly, is perhaps the most transparently dishonest contributor to SOLO.)”
It should be clear to any reader who read both of my articles that I never claimed that Rand was a “fan of the Christian ideal.” What I actually said – the cognitive fact of my words about not retaliating in kind against aggression – was blanked-out in favor of a moral judgment. The normative prevailed and the cognitive was treated as if it did not exist. To hell with the facts. Some butt needed to be kicked because Rand is perfect and you cannot mention the Bible in the same breath with her!
This extended to the completely baseless normative judgment that I am “perhaps the most transparently dishonest contributor to SOLO.” In this last case, it is true that the cognitive is not blanked out. It is simply not used. There are no facts presented to evaluate. Ms. Hsieh is merely spouting off an opinion based on feeling. (btw – I can’t resist noting that she was so impassioned here that she made a traditional grammatical mistake, using “it’s” instead of “its.”)
That, Tibor, is my first quote from an Objectivist. It dealt specifically with “turning the other cheek,” albeit in an indirect manner. However, my argument is not only about that particular act and principle. My argument is about a normative abuse of “is and ought” that leads to poor thinking. That is the meat of my argument.
So, following your advice in your next post, I looked up another very traditional Objectivist, Leonard Peikoff. I decided to look at one of his articles with a similar title to mine, “Fact and Value.” That is another way of saying “is and ought,” or even “cognitive and normative.”
The following quotes are from Peikoff’s “Fact and Value”
He starts pretty good.
“Every proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact: a given object or action advances man's life (it is good): or it threatens man's life (it is bad or an evil). The good, therefore, is a species of the true; it is a form of recognizing reality. The evil is a species of the false; it is a form of contradicting reality. Or: values are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relation to the choice to live.”
He correctly states that “the good, therefore, is a species of the true” and “the evil is a species of the false.”
In other words, something can be true or false without being good or evil. True and false are cognitive evaluations; good and evil are normative ones. True and false are based on metaphysics and epistemology; good and evil are based ethics (which is based on metaphysics and epistemology). True and false are wider categories than good and evil, just as metaphysics and epistemology are wider philosophical fields than ethics. Ethics sits on metaphysics and epistemology, just as good and evil sit on true and false.
Sorry to be so redundant, as all this seems so very obvious. Yet I see many people miss this point entirely. Back to Peikoff and a very subtle form of blindness creeping in.
“Cognition apart from evaluation is purposeless; it becomes the arbitrary desire for ‘pure knowledge’ as an end in itself. Evaluation apart from cognition is non-objective; it becomes the whim of pursuing an ‘I wish’ not based on any ‘It is.’”
He does not come out and say that something like scientific research (the type used in “discovering what is out there,” like astronomy, for instance) without a specific purpose is evil. He says that it is purposeless and arbitrary. (If cornered on this, I am pretty sure that he would “walk around” the issue. He would come up with some kind of remote human value, regardless of whether it fit or not.) The sole act of finding out if something is true or false – without any value judgment (good or evil) – is considered by him to be “purposeless and arbitrary.”
He thus sets the ground for blanking out certain types of cognitive knowledge by making them seem unimportant to a fault. Another way to state this is that if something cannot be good or evil, it is not worth looking at. It is morally OK to blank it out.
From here, it is easy to jump into blanking out the cognitive when the normative is used. The normative has been held up as being much more crucial to human existence than the cognitive. But an inversion of importance has taken place, since all normative judgments are based on cognitive facts.
This leads him to make the astounding statements at the end:
“Now I wish to make a request to any unadmitted anti-Objectivists reading this piece, a request that I make as Ayn Rand's intellectual and legal heir.”
and
“… if you agree with the Branden or Kelley viewpoint or anything resembling it — please drop out of our movement: drop Ayn Rand, leave Objectivism alone. We do not want you and Ayn Rand would not have wanted you — just as you, in fact, do not want us or her.”
There is no longer any need for facts here. Rand never declared him to be her intellectual heir. That would be a cognitive fact if she had done so. Yet, in Peikoff’s normative evaluation, he is her intellectual heir. “Legal” has become inclusive to mean “intellectual.” The problem is that there are no facts to base that conclusion on. The very need for facts here has been blanked out – a pure cognitive blank-out.
Another blank-out is that he claims that those of holding the “Branden or Kelley viewpoint” (which is in the singular for some reason) do not want Ayn Rand. One must ask, if they don’t want her, then what’s the noise all about? Obviously they do want her, and they want her in context. They all have written a great deal about her. However, this cognitive fact is blanked out to make a normative proclamation and appeal.
Anyway, I went one further, Tibor. I chose an article by a leading Objectivist (still of the ARI bent) practically at random, and on an issue that was not so Rand-worship oriented.
"The Hazards of a Smoke-Free Environment"
By: Robert Tracinski (May 23, 2003)
“The decision to smoke, or to avoid ‘second-hand’ smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on. All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbors. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free, because his life belongs to him--not to his neighbors--and only his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority.”
Before I address this excerpt, let me state that I am not in favor of government meddling in individual freedoms. I am merely looking at a manner of thinking. (And poor thinking is not a good way to argue for a good cause.)
The whole crux of the argument of those in favor of limiting the consumption of “second-hand” smoke is that it is involuntary and it is dangerous. It could even be argued that allowing “second-hand” smoke in public access places is a form of initiation of non-consensual force. There are several solutions to this, but in a normative zeal against government encroachment against individual liberty, the cognitive reality that inadvertently inhaling “second-hand” smoke is involuntary is simply blanked out. The dangerous aspect is mentioned in the article, but severely downplayed and treated almost with irony.
The only solution provided is for each individual to “assess the risks” regarding where he goes. His freedom to so assess and choose is defended as being under attack. However, one small fact got left out. Anything involuntary is not freedom, it is the opposite and it is against freedom. Once again, here is a cognitive blank-out in order to make a normative point.
Let me state once more that I am not in favor of the government meddling solution. I, however, do not think that a good case was made. Facts were omitted. A cognitive blank-out occurred to make way for a normative conclusion.
Now, one last quote, Tibor. However, it will not be to illustrate a cognitive blank-out. Exactly the contrary.
In researching the “Fact and Value” issue, I read an essay by David Kelley. I have read precious little by him so far, so his defense at the start of the animosity seemed like a good place.
What a breath of fresh air!
(That is my normative evaluation and here are my cognitive facts.)
“A Question of Sanction”
by David Kelley “Truth and falsity, not good or evil, are the primary evaluative concepts that apply to ideas as such.”
Then a little later on:
“Truth or falsity is the essential property of an idea; the good or ill it produces is derivative.”
The whole reason for this is that truth and falsity are based on metaphysics and epistemology. They are cognitive abstractions. Good and evil are based on ethics (which is based on metaphysics and epistemology). They are normative abstractions.
Even Peikoff called good and evil “species” of truth and falsity. However he considers the purely cognitive “purposeless and arbitrary.”
That is what has led to his “closed system.” There is no more need for new facts. The evaluations have already been made and any new facts can easily be blanked-out.
I know the following quote, the last paragraph of David Kelley’s article, does not exactly apply to the cognitive/normative part of this discussion, but I did raise a new issue with a new perspective on “turn the other cheek.” I “unloaded” the normative “load” and looked only at the cognitive act, before reevaluating the appropriateness of the normative. I looked at is, then at ought. I looked at fact, then at value.
I was OK until I came to Rand’s fiction. Then all hell broke loose after a while. Rand is perfect. You are evil. Rand is perfect. You are evil. Rand is perfect. You are evil. Rand is perfect. You are evil. So the following words have a very special meaning to me. From the looks of things, I think that I am going to like Mr. Kelley. And for the record, I deeply admire Ayn Rand and her magnificent body of works.
“Ayn Rand left us a magnificent system of ideas. But it is not a closed system. It is a powerful engine of integration. Let us not starve it of fuel by shutting our minds to what is good in other approaches. Let us test our ideas in open debate. If we are right, we have nothing to fear; if we are wrong, we have something to learn. Above all, let us encourage independent thought among ourselves. Let us welcome dissent, and the restless ways of the explorers among us. Nine out of ten new ideas will be mistakes, but the tenth will let in the light.”
Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/11, 8:51am)
| 
