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 1


Post 20

Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 4:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From "considered herself a novelist" I didn't get the impression that Michael was criticizing Rand's ability or accomplishments.  I assumed he meant that she thought of herself primarily as a novelist rather than as a philosopher.  (I don't know if that is in fact true, but that's what he seemed to be saying.)

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> Would you explain to me what you meant by "he doesn't exactly write with crystalline clarity..."

Michael, just as one example, your statement: "I agree, you are all doubleplusgood ducktalker Objectivists" [#13] has no meaning that will be understood by anyone.

Communication must be objective not subjective or a game played with yourself inside your own head, not whatever words sound funny or clever to you subjectively. I have no idea what a ducktalker is (someone who talks *like* a duck? someone who talks *to* ducks, someone who ducks issues?) let alone what a doubleplusgood one is or what it means when used as an adjective to describe an Objectivist. Maybe this means something in Hungarian.

Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For whatever it's worth, I agree with William Nevin's insightful and eloquently stated criticism. Regardless of Michael's intentions, his post betrayed a lack of respect for Rand and her achievements. It may be that he simply wasn't aware of the impression that his characterization conveyed, but he should have been. To say, for example, that Rand "considered herself a novelist" suggests that others didn't consider her one or that she didn't deserve that designation. What he should have said is that Rand considered herself primarily a novelist and secondarily a philosopher, if that's the sense in which he meant it.

- Bill

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 10:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

"Doubleplusgood duckspeaker" (I believe that's the correct form, not "ducktalker") means something in Orwellian Newspeak.

Doubleplusgood is Newspeak for "best." A duckspeaker is one who can quack out the party line without needing to think consciously about what he or she is saying.

I doubt anyone here would take being called a duckspeaker as a compliment. Let alone a doubleplusgood one...

Robert Campbell

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 12:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay, that makes me feel a little better...

Quack.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 7:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
25 words or less:

Objectivism is a speculative philosophy that holds reality is real, man is competent to discern truth from falsehood, and liberty is a fundamental human right.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 5:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Campbell wrote: "... duckspeaker" (I believe that's the correct form, not "ducktalker") means something in Orwellian Newspeak."

Thank you, Robert.  I was shocked to discover that Phil had never read 1984.  Then it occurred to me that he probably read it, but does not remember it.  Age will do that.  It creeps up on you and you do not realize what you are losing until it is gone.  Then I thought that perhaps he read 1984 but only understood the broadest, most obvious elements and that most of the book was lost on him.  That would be a harsh criticism of an Objectivist Fellow Institute Lecturer, so I dismissed it.


Post 27

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 5:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Philip Coates wrote: "Michael, just as one example, your statement: "I agree, you are all doubleplusgood ducktalker Objectivists" [#13] has no meaning that will be understood by anyone.
     Communication must be objective not subjective or a game played with yourself inside your own head, not whatever words sound funny or clever to you subjectively."
Actually, Philip, you seem to be the only one here who did not understand the Orwellian reference.

Also, just what "communication" is is an interesting topic. The purpose of language is to facilitate thinking.  Communication comes as a consequence of that.  (To believe otherwise is to endorse the claim that society defines your thoughts.)  So, whatever happens inside my head is far more important to me than the affect that my words have on you.

As for "communication" it actually has as its root just exactly the transferring of one's subjective state.  Social animals announce much to each other, but it begins within the individual.

Your own subjective internal state makes it difficult for you to understand me.  In the wilds, we would drift apart.  Here, we are brought together. 

Just to underscore how far apart Michael and Philip are in their ability to communicate, in Number 18, I was making fun of you.  You said, "he doesn't exactly write with crystalline clarity."  There is a contrast there.  You demand crystalline clarity but you do not provide it, exactly.  Then, you said, that I use "a lot of terms" incorrectly, but you cite only two.  So, I asked, how many terms are in a lot?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 10/30, 5:32am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.