Is the name 'SOLO' proper?

I accept my mistake of making such comment to Jennifer in public, though not because it should not have been said but because it was too private to share it in a public forum. However an error is an error is an error. I should have been more careful before making such a comment.

Post 41

Monday, November 22, 2004 - 7:00am

Well after waiting for quite some time for the reply to my question ('Is the name SOLO proper') from the founder, all I have got is that I have misrepresented SOLO. All that I said was that the name of the group should be true to its purpose and that we should fight for the primary - reason, and not the effect - a benevolent sense of life. I do not find it acceptable that the founder has not given me an explicit reply to such a fundamental question. So I'll take the only reply that I got (of 'misrepresenting SOLO') as the basis of my conclusions and actions.

If I have represented the importance of 'reason' to be upheld as the purpose, then I conclude that 'SOLO' does share this purpose (since I have misrepresented it).Whatever other purpose 'SOLO' intends to achieve I'll have no part in it, I will not give my sanction to such a purpose. I agree with Hugh Akston for the reason of his strike. This is my last message to the group.

A friend of mine told me that he posted in SOLO for a long time, because there are good people who do post here and they would appreciate what I have to say. To my friend and the people to whom he was referrring to, I would make it clear that I don't care, primarily, what others can get out of my views, this is not a good enough reason for me to be a part of SOLO. As far as sharing our views for mutual benefit is considered we can do it somewhere else, but if they want to get the benefit of my views and also give their sanction to a purpose which nullifies such a benefit, if they want to have their 'cake' and eat it too, I'll have no part in it, I'm not willing to trade on such terms.

Post 42

Monday, November 22, 2004 - 1:20pm

Such is your right Sumit.

Linz and Co. can call the site whatever they wish and you can choose to participate or not, assuming they continue to allow you to post or not. The world is full of plenty of people who claim to have a lot to offer. How can we be sad at your leaving when all you brought to the table was a protest about a name and an arrogant attitude? For all we know, you may have a lot to offer, but I'll tell you this. Being rude is one sure way to get people not to trade with you.

Post 43

Monday, November 22, 2004 - 3:12pm

Very nice, Ethan. Well said.

I'll make a few comments to add.

First, as far as misrepresenting SOLO, Sumit said "We are not primarily fighting for Objectivist Sense of life, we are fighting for reason, for reality." Of course, would that make our name be OSOL? I think that's clearly a misrepresentation. That was the theme of all of his posts. That somehow we got it backwards. But he just wrote it backwards. SOLO is Sense of Life Objectivists. Objectivists being the noun, and Sense of Life being a qualifier.

If we had called ourselves the Passionate Objectivists, would he then say that we're for passion and not reason?

He started the thread by saying "The name of the group should express what the group stands for, its purpose, its motive for existence." Express our purpose? Like the Ayn Rand Institute? That sure tells you a lot about them, doesn't it? Or The Objectivist Center? I think the name pretty well defines the purpose, doesn't it? No and no.

Why should the name express the purpose? Why not express the means? Instead of everyone calling themselves the "Take over the World Objectivists", why not distinguish between the different groups? One of the more important points of SOLO is its rejection of the reason/passion dichotomy. We clearly want to distinguish ourselves from the "Objectivists" out there who think emotions are some kind of strange side-effect to reason that you don't need and you shouldn't pay attention to cause they just get in the way of pure reasoning. You all know the types. There are the Mr. Spock types who uphold reason as some kind of duty to perform. There are the assholes who are incredibly rude and make enemies easily, and than attack anyone who gets upset as being emotional (as if it the fact of emotion invalidates any possibility of being rational).

Last comment for now. What's with "reason and reality" being our goals? What ever happened to life? Since when did thinking become more important than living? Obviously they go together, but upholding reason as if it were the point of it all? Do we live in order to reason? Or do we reason in order to live? If you think reason is the primary, then it makes sense why you might go down the path of dismissing emotions and sense of life. But if life is the purpose, and happiness is the reward, you can't be so quick to throw it all aside as if it were some useless consequence. Perhaps this is the real disagreement.

Post 44

Monday, November 22, 2004 - 4:48pm