RoR: Forum

Mike,

I hear you about MSK, but I don't think so.

As for the frustrations of being rational in an irrational world, I concur.

Post 101

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:25pm

Casey,

Speaking of being rational in an irrational world,

Er... ever come up with any of those quotes?

You, for one, did make the accusations...

//;-)

Michael

Post 102

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:28pm

In the face of people attacking each other on this thread -- throwing around the charge of "deliberate enemy of Objectivism", using the term "evil", etc. -- I'd like to quote something on one of the earliest articles on this website by someone attracted to Solo and about what Solo was intended to achieve:

"Standard dress for a romp through the sun-lit garden of Objectivism should not be inquisitor's robes. ... What about changing the world through positive ideas?"

Post 103

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:37pm

Phil,

Amen.

Jim

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:47pm

I didn't use terms such as evil or enemy -- but if the shoe fits, wear it.

I believe that many who are drawn to Objectivism have the perverse motivation of adapting it to their own non-Objectivist point-of-view to gain the subjectivist's benefit of Objectivism's endorsement.

Post 105

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 6:05pm

Casey,

I didn't call you a fanatic (although I do see some tendencies in that direction, since you mention it). You asked me for a synthesis of what I was saying. I told you. That theme underlies all my points on this issue. Non-retaliation was merely an example (a strong one) to illustrate it.

Let me put the theme in another way so maybe you won't take it so personal.

Making cognitive blank-outs is a bad habit and leads to fanaticism - but you can call it over-emphasis on the normative like I did to be polite.

Still, I kinda agree about your comment, if the shoe fits...

And I'm kinda still wondering about them there quotes...

I thought you didn't like smear jobs and unsupported accusations.

Er... I think get it. You don't like these things only part of the time.

Hmmmmmmmm...

Selective application of standards? Now shucks! There I go being polite again...

Michael

Post 106

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 6:17pm

Let's remember what MSK actually wrote about this initially. (Incidentally, these unfortunate proceedings would not read so much like a trial of MSK if he had actually owned up to his own statements to begin with. Meaning what you say and saying what you mean avoids a lot of needless process. Being honest about failing to do so also cuts back on a lot of busywork. But putting up a defense of shoddy thinking with insults and ARI anti-Branden conspiracy theories takes the cakes as far as requiring long anti-MSK threads. In short, it's HIS fault.)

Now, MSK has stated that there was no "normative" or ethically evaluative aspect to his citing of Christianity's "turn the other cheek" doctrine. Here is a quote from the original essay he posted. You decide whether we are dealing with honesty, a fundamental requirement to any valid debate, or not:

"One of the issues that has always bothered me has been the snarling about religious principles. There are several that make good sense at times, like, for instance, turning the other cheek. But they contradict the basic principles of Objectivism, so they are hardly ever discussed. When people do talk about them, it is always with disparagement and scorn. ...

Well, are religious principles like turning the other cheek really anti-Objectivism? There goes that little child inside me again. He tells me that Ayn Rand¹s heroes turned the other cheek all the time in her fiction.

Ta-daaaa!

Here come the knee-jerks! Moral denunciations! Ayn Rand's heroes turning the other cheek? Dayaamm! The very idea!"

This is, to say the least, too broad and imprecise an ethical statement for the author to object to the protestations it invited regarding normative claims.

Period.

Unless he meant what he said.

Which is OK.

You don't have to be an Objectivist or an objectivist lower case "o," even, Michael. No problem. That doesn't make Ayn Rand into an ivory Athena in a doric temple and doesn't make you a sinner, either. It makes you what you are and Rand what she is, and the twain shall only meet when they actually do. Why can't you live with that distinction?

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 11/13, 6:28pm)

Post 107

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 6:35pm

Michael,

(Sigh)

I fail to see how "blank-outs" relate to your proposal about Objectivism's embrace of the "turn-the-other-cheek" doctrine.

Except in the literal sense.

(Ho-ho.)

Post 108

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 6:50pm

Casey,

Did you read the rest of the article?

I used the term "act" for the cognitive abstraction later on. After that particular rhetorical statement that you quoted for dramatic impact (as Kat so succinctly put it, talking about surface similarities between the "act" and the Christian principle), the meaning of what I was saying became clear.

Rand used Christian dramatic impact statements sometimes. For instance, when she said "God bless America" on broadcast TV, (and even "God bless you" in an interview), I'm pretty sure nobody would accuse her of being Christian. There was context there.

Those who didn't see my context just didn't want to see it. Even the humorous manner of presentation was ignored by the sourpuss knee-jerkers, but I won't dwell on that.

I have a theory.

They've been salivating for a real Christian enemy to trounce ever since they read Rand, except she dispatched the fundamental Christian arguments over a half a century ago. That's really frustrating. So they have to make one where none exists to give their life meaning.

Have you noticed that none of the real bad guys in the real world are listening to us? LOLOLOL... (They do listen to Rand, but not us. That's because she put her works out in the real world - then the Brandens organized lessons to be held out in the real world. The Objectivist newsletter and magazine only became influential out in the real world when the essays became compilation books out in the real world with real nationwide publishers.)

But what the hell are we doing? Picking on each other and bickering on an Internet forum - and then pretending that this is going to result in a better world? Gimmee a break!

We should be figuring out how to go after the real enemies of liberty. To tell the truth, we should be figuring out how to make money from this Internet enterprise thing so we can grow. We should be figuring out how to educate people and sell a variety of products.

Any other quote? I'm sorry, I don't see altruism there. Not even the insinuation of Rand going Christian. Altruism was not my meaning. (Context, bro, context...)

But if it makes you happy, and I did offer, I would be glad to rewrite it to make the anti-altruism become more clear. How about this?

"Well, are religious principles like turning the other cheek really anti-Objectivism? There goes that little child inside me again. He tells me that Ayn Rand¹s heroes turned the other cheek - albeit for a different reason - all the time in her fiction.

Ta-daaaa!"

That sound better to you?

Now, anymore quotes?

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/13, 6:53pm)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/13, 7:01pm)

Post 109

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 7:01pm

Michael,

It's ONE-HUNDRED-PERCENT BETTTER that way.

Thank you.

Post 110

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 7:03pm

Wonderful, Casey.

See where discussion and not immediate denunciation leads to?

I repeat - there are some real bastards and evil fucks who are avowed enemies of freedom and reason out in the real world. We should be going after them.

Michael

Edit - btw - You ready to open your mind to the division of ethical principles into cognitive and normative parts now? And how thinking predominantly in normative terms over a long period of time leads to cognitive blank-outs (and maybe even other bad mental habits)? And how that leads to blind prejudice and fanaticism?

And how a periodic mental "check-up" is a good idea to avoid all that?

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/13, 7:16pm)

Post 111

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 7:31pm

Michael,

Don't get carried away.

I'm agreeing with the necessary qualification for your last bruhaha, not giving you carte blanch for the next one. (Dear lord...)

Post 112

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 8:02pm

Casey,

You just wrote:

"(Dear lord...)"

Be careful with that Christian stuff around here. Some people get real paRANDoid about it.

Also, sorry about the enthusiasm. I forget. Overcoming blind prejudice takes time...

Michael

Edit - You be careful about agreeing with an idea of mine like you did, Casey. Your folk don't cotton to that too much. They are interested in people, not in ideas. (I seem to remember an Objectivist word for that kind of thinking...)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/13, 8:08pm)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/14, 7:52am)

Post 113

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 5:35am