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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


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

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 4:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert Bidinotto recently gave a speech entitled “The Anatomy of Cooperation” at the Summer Seminar of The Atlas Society.  The following quotation is from the text of that speech, now posted on TAS' website:

Anyone who has been around the Objectivist movement for any period of time—or who cares to go online to sites where Objectivists debate and discuss ideas—will realize that there are vast disagreements even among those supposedly in our own camp. As in the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant, it seems that everyone who seizes upon Ayn Rand’s system perceives something different, and reads diverse meanings into her words.

One way of trying to address this is in the manner that Will Thomas did, and David Kelley before him: that is, by defining Objectivism in terms of its philosophical fundamentals, rather than as being synonymous with everything that Rand said, and only what she said. This approach distinguishes Objectivism from other bodies of ideas, but allows for a reasonable range of debate and difference over derivative implications. But that still doesn’t quite solve the problem of philosophical cooperation, since even derivative implications can be very important. (Moreover, I think it’s safe to say that not all Objectivists are going to agree with the definitions of Objectivism put forth by David or Will.)

But the matter is not hopeless. As is so often the case, the seeds of a solution can be found in Ayn Rand’s own words.

Recall her statement: “It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise…There can be no compromise on basic principles or on fundamental issues.” If this is true—and I agree with Rand that it is—then a simple solution suggests itself; let me state it as a basic principle of cooperation:
 
Limit the scope of philosophical and intellectual cooperation only to concretes and particulars that implement a shared principle.

 

This quotation sums up precisely why I am not now and (regrettably) never will be a member of The Atlas Society, for which Bidinotto is a prominent spokesman.  He seems to imply that, because various people who call themselves “Objectivists” have differing views on a wide variety of issues, we must accept all such disagreement as, for the most part, legitimate and valid. That strikes me as pure subjectivism. 

 

Bidinotto seems to want to sell the reader on the following “package deal”: Because Ayn Rand made the statement that one may compromise on concretes, all debates which do not explicitly contradict a key Objectivist principle thereby acquire some sort of “rational” validity, and one Objectivist’s opinion is just as good as another’s.  Any specific, "concrete" issue can then be packaged as an  “inessential” issue—a non-fundamental—along with favorite pets and tastes in music, and almost any advocate of any position who pays lip service to the “basic principles” can then be welcomed under the TAS Objectivist umbrella.

 

In Objectivism, the “concretes” and “particulars” subsumed within a given category of rational values delineate a wide range of optional choices, such as the decision to be an architect or scientist, for instance, as the practical application of the principle of productivity.  Or one’s choice of romantic partners.  Or one’s tastes in art.  But such legitimate options do not extend to direct implications of rational principles—such as the choice of whether to assert one’s right of self-interest in situations where one’s life or values are threatened.

 

The above quotation may help to explain why, for example, TAS refuses to defend the application of the principle of rational self-interest in foreign policy in the uncompromising way that ARI does.  Those libertarians who advocate isolationism and pacifism—or some murky version of Bush’s “compassionate war” strategy--in the name of ‘noncoercion’ are apparently deemed legitimate Objectivist fellow travelers.  We must not offend them or take controversial positions opposing "Just War Theory."  We must learn to compromise with their point of view, even if it means rendering our own intellectual and moral voice impotent and worthless in the face of an enemy who is threatening our very survival.

 

If war is not a fundamental issue, someone please tell me what would be.  If the purpose of an organization founded on a rational philosophy is not to offer moral and ethical guidance to our nation’s leadership (by influencing public opinion) in the midst of a national crisis, then what value is it?  As an Objectivist dating service for singles, perhaps?  Certainly not as an educational organization with the purpose of advocating, explaining and defending the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

 

It is not necessary to patronize those who hold misguided viewpoints in order to reach out to them.  The tendency of some spokesmen for ARI to label those who disagree with their position as "immoral" is brazenly destructive.  That is most certainly not the way to go about spreading a new and radical philosophy.  But the alternative is not sanction or condemnation.  Those Objectivists who fully grasp the philosophy can make the effort to persuade those who don't, but not while patting them on the back and telling them that their opinion is just as good as anyone else’s.

 

If refusing to take a forthright stand in favor of a free nation’s right of military self-defense is not a compromise between food and poison--to use the analogy cited by Ayn Rand and quoted by Bidinotto in his essay--nothing is. TAS should be in the forefront of those condemning the needless, tragic sacrifice of American lives and openly defending America's right to use whatever level of force is needed in the name of our self-defense.  Their virtual silence is not merely deafening.  It is an abdication of their philosophical heritage.

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 8:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis,

ARI has a different problem than the concerns you mention about TAS. Either no one is listening to them or people are watching with the mild amusement of watching a freak show act. When Yaron Brook mentioned that it would be OK to nuke populated areas in order to kill terrorists, I had to remind myself for a moment what planet he was from. I actually like Brook and think he does good work so I'm dismayed that statements concerning the cavalier use of nuclear weapons are part of the public face ARI chooses to assume for Objectivism. 

The US successfully invaded Iraq, we had no obligation to build a new country for them and are engaging in the preposterously foolhardy and sacrificial attempt to fight an unconventional war by conventional means. There are probably differences of opinion among members of TAS as well as ARI, but I think the concensus opinion would be captured above.

I also see no hint of subjectivism in Bidinotto's article, although I do think TAS sometimes has subjectivist tendencies.Those tendencies stem from the fact that there is no outlined method in Truth and Toleration for determining fertile areas of inquiry in Objectivism. Kelley does indicate areas he considers fundamental and essential to Objectivism. I think a start in determining priorities for future work is to focus on those areas where new inductive data is most prevalent. TAS has been doing this, focussing the last two years on philosphy of science and cognitive science.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 7/23, 8:02am)

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 7/23, 9:30am)

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 7/23, 9:33am)


Sanction: 31, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 31, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 31, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 11:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
He seems to imply that, because various people who call themselves “Objectivists” have differing views on a wide variety of issues, we must accept all such disagreement as, for the most part, legitimate and valid. That strikes me as pure subjectivism.
Huh? Where in Bidinotto's quote did he say this? Your summation has no relation to the quote you give. Further, I was at that talk and I'm certain (Robert can confirm) that he was not saying that all disagreements amongst Objectivists are for the most part legitimate and valid.

The point is that we can sometimes make common cause with those we disagree with if the cooperation is for a specific concrete goal shared by both parties.

(Edited by Jordan Zimmerman on 7/23, 11:53am)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 5:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Jordan. You got it right.

Dennis Hardin: I believe I have been misunderstood here. Not only is what you "read into" my statement not there, no one who knows me would agree with you that Bidinotto believes that...

"Any specific, "concrete" issue can then be packaged as an "inessential" issue—a non-fundamental—along with favorite pets and tastes in music, and almost any advocate of any position who pays lip service to the "basic principles" can then be welcomed under the TAS Objectivist umbrella."


Absolutely untrue.

Clearly, there is an issue of fundamentality with regard to applications and implications of Objectivist principles. However, I don't have a clue where you could have gotten the impression that either I or my TAS colleagues would disagree with your following point: "But such legitimate options do not extend to direct implications of rational principles—such as the choice of whether to assert one’s right of self-interest in situations where one’s life or values are threatened." Of course we would assert such a right.

In fact, we have. Loudly and clearly and repeatedly.

Let's begin with my own public statements. Click here, then scroll down to the section, "Foreign Policy and National Defense." I suggest you start your reading from the bottom entry of that section, then proceed upward through the links. If you or anyone else find my statements any less than "uncompromising" on matters of principle regarding the war on Islamofascism, I'll buy you dinner.

Then you make a specific accusation: "Those libertarians who advocate isolationism and pacifism—or some murky version of Bush’s "compassionate war" strategy--in the name of ‘noncoercion’ are apparently deemed legitimate Objectivist fellow travelers."

"...apparently..."? Oh really? Where? Certainly not in my writings. For example, read here, then try this one. Also, go again to the index of my blog, scroll down, and peruse the posts under the heading, "Anarchism vs. Limited Government."

"Apparently"?

Not apparent to me. And not apparent to libertarian anarchists, who frequently attack me on their blogs and websites for being a "warmonger" and the like.

But what about TAS's own stated positions on foreign policy and national defense?

On the premise that the organization will never be credited for holding hardliner positions based on my own public views -- well, it really doesn't need to rely on me. It has compiled extensive online archives of position statements on all aspects of foreign policy generally, and "the war for civilization" in particular. Check here first, then try here.

Dennis, these views are not a secret. The essays -- post after post -- are plastered all over our website. Also, all over the pages of The New Individualist. For example, our Winter 2006 issue -- the first magazine in America to defiantly put one of those "Muhammad cartoons" on its cover -- offered a number of hardline articles on various aspects of the war against Islamofascism, including this wonderful commentary, this scorching review, and -- oh yes -- this take-no-prisoners editorial.

And that's just one issue of the magazine.

Yet despite all of this, you characterize our position thus: "...TAS refuses to defend the application of the principle of rational self-interest in foreign policy in the uncompromising way that ARI does."

Duh. What would we have to do to satisfy you: strap mini-nukes on our belts, and then head for Teheran?

Dennis, are you truly reading our stuff...or just the nasty things that our rage-filled competitors are saying about us, using the time-dishonored techniques of out-of-context quotations and outright lies?

You conclude:

"TAS should be in the forefront of those condemning the needless, tragic sacrifice of American lives and openly defending America's right to use whatever level of force is needed in the name of our self-defense. Their virtual silence is not merely deafening. It is an abdication of their philosophical heritage."

Have we truly been silent? Or are you deaf?


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis -- I agree with Robert on all these points and would expand on one as well. I can only assume that you're not familiar with our website or our publications since we have written quite a bit about the war and issues relating to it. I believe that honest individuals can disagree on particular strategies, for example, whether the war in Iraq is the best way to fight terrorists. But we nowhere deny the right of America to do what it takes to defend itself.

Further, in a piece on "The Means and Ends of Islam," in a section in which I reject any notion of moral equivalence between American actions against terrorists and dictators and terrorist actions against America, I also reject the notion that we have a duty to sacrifice our own interests: "whether it was in America’s self-interest to liberate Iraq is a separate question: America certainly has no duty to establish freedom in other nations."

In that article I show in gory detail that the worst of the Islamists are literal death-worshippers. Here's the link:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1569-The_Means_and_Ends_of_Islamists_.aspx

I don't know how I could be any more explicit.

Also see my piece on "The Jihad Against Free Speech" in which I distinction between free speech, toleration and sensitivity:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1666-Jihad_vs_Free_Speech.aspx

In this piece, as with others, I try not just to denounce the thugs who hate us -- the easy part -- but to clarify the confusion a lot of people who should know better have concerning the issues involved.

And you might also check out my op-ed on "Flushing the Koran or Reason Down the Toilet?"
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-43-1609-Flushing_the_Koran_or_Reason_Down_the_Toilet.aspx

Or my piece on "Deep Savages:"
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-43-1613-Deep_Savages.aspx

Or on the London terrorist bombings:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-43-1605-The_London_Massacre.aspx

We have been as firm on these moral issues as we can be. Perhaps you have disagreements with particular points we make. Fine! It is, after all, one of the principles of our organization that honest Objectivists as well as non-Objectivists can have honest disagreements. But on the fundamental principles, as these articles should show, we've been quite clear.

Ed Hudgins

(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 7/24, 7:12pm)


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

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 1:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James, Jordan, Robert, Edward--
 
I truly wish I had more time to devote to this discussion.  I want you to know that I appreciate your willingness to address my criticisms.
 

In regard to whether or not Robert’s essay endorses a form of subjectivism, I will offer these additional quotes:

While many people will sign on to a general statement of principles—or declare allegiance to some abstract philosophy—the actual meaning of those abstractions is determined by the concrete, specific positions that the group or its leaders proclaim day to day. And on these specific implications there are grounds for endless feuds.

Such conflicts multiply almost infinitely when an organization’s scope of interest incorporates not just one principle, but an entire philosophy, such as Objectivism. Every day, the group is compelled to issue statements and position papers on specific new issues. What is the Objectivist position on Iraq? On the NSA wiretaps? On preemptive strikes against nations harboring terrorists? Does the group agree with Ayn Rand’s position about homosexuality? About women Presidents? About libertarians? About anarchism? About Romantic music? Is there some boundary line between Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and her conclusions on such specific issues? Etc.

Those members or participants who disagree with the group’s official stand on any of these issues face a moral dilemma. Should they continue to participate, lending their money and support to propagate views they think are wrong? Or should they try to weigh and balance the overall good they think the group does, against the bad? Or should they try to take over the group, kicking out the present leadership and then imposing their interpretations on everyone else?

It’s easy to see why philosophical advocacy groups are so unstable, and characterized by chronic purges and palace coups.  The underlying problem is that such groups are rooted in the following principle: that some people are to serve as philosophical spokespersons for others.

No mind can represent another—not philosophically. No two people will grasp all the implications of a complex, systematic philosophy in exactly the same way.

To escape the trap of orthodoxy, other ideological groups—such as libertarian and conservative advocacy organizations—have gone to the other extreme, and deliberately eschewed any systematic philosophy. But you don’t solve the problem of authoritarian dogma by sinking to vacuous subjectivism. The proper approach is to structure organizational projects in which a systematic philosophy may be advanced in ways that respect the independence and integrity of all participants.

One such structure is the educational forum. In a forum, the views expressed are solely those of their author, and not those of the group. This, incidentally, is the way that The Atlas Society in general, and the Summer Seminar in particular, have always been structured—and it’s the main reason, I believe, for their stability and success. Members are united by the basic principles of Objectivism, but remain free to openly express and debate a range of interpretations and differences. Because no one is assumed to be speaking for anyone but himself, no one feels any pressure to enforce a party line—or to submit to one.


As I stated previously, Robert misinterprets Ayn Rand’s distinction with respect to compromising on “concretes and particulars” and extends it to apply to concrete, specific positions which involve fundamental principles—e.g., the Iraq war, preemptive strikes and anarchism.   The other specific issues he mentions—homosexuality, government wiretaps, female presidents, libertarians, tastes in music—are sufficiently concrete and/or complex as to allow for reasonable debate from an Objectivist perspective.  They do not involve fundamental tenets or their derivative principles.

 

The rest of the above cited quotations, taken in the context of the prior reference to the fact that “everyone who seizes upon Ayn Rand’s system…reads diverse meanings into her words,” imply that those individual interpretations are, at least to some extent, equally valid.  To say that the only way to resolve such differences is through “orthodoxy” or the authoritarianism of a “spokesperson,” rather than a given thinker’s ability to defend their position through logic and reason, is, once again, subjectivism by implication.

 

For the record, I agree that ARI tends to support an attitude of “orthodoxy” in certain of the positions adopted by its intellectual leadership.  However, the “orthodoxy” of which I disapprove has specifically to do with concretes that are not related to any fundamental or derivative principles, but to their unthinking idolatry of Ayn Rand and their blind condemnation of the Brandens, David Kelley, et. al.   To describe ARI’s well-defended positions on most philosophical fundamentals and derivatives as “the trap of orthodoxy” is to blur the distinction between the rational and the arbitrary.  I certainly would not deny that there is some room for legitimate debate here as well--particularly with respect to epistemology and esthetics--but those areas are much more delimited than what Robert seems to imply.    

 

I had previously seen and read most of the various TAS commentaries cited by both Robert and Edward Hudgins.  Although they generally make the case for the irrationality and destructiveness of Islamic fundamentalism, they most certainly do not address the critical issue of America’s right to use whatever force is necessary to win the global war on Islamo-fascism.  It is possible I missed something, but I doubt it.  For the most part, TAS’ is on record as supporting America’s current policy toward Iraq, giving implicit sanction to the monstrous sacrifice of over 2500 American soldier’s lives in the name of minimizing “innocent” civilian casualties.

 

This comes as no surprise, since TAS’ original “Position Statement” on the terror war called for doing everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties in order to convince the enemy that our heart is in the right place, and it was accompanied by Patrick Stephens’ wringing endorsement of “Just War Theory,” in which he applauded the “heroic” sacrifice of our innocent soldiers to save enemy civilians.

 

In answer to James: I completely agree with Yaron Brook.  Although I am not in a position to endorse specific military strategies, to risk the loss of thousands of American lives in order to save enemy civilians is a moral atrocity.  That is precisely what we are doing by hamstringing our military’s ability to destroy Al Quaeda’s leadership.

 

I noted several articles on Robert’s blog in which he appears to give explicit support to Bush’s altruistic approach to conducting this war.  The one positive thing I had not seen before was Robert’s criticism of Bush’s foolish and tragic efforts at ‘democracy-building’ in that Middle Eastern garbage dump.  The fact that both Robert and Edward seem to regard Bush’s policy as consistent with America’s moral right to use the full force of her military might in this global conflict only underscores my position.

 
Either the TAS leadership has no understanding of the meaning of rational self-interest as applied to foreign policy, or they refrain from taking such a position as a concession to those ‘Objectivists’ who might disagree.  I cannot believe that they do not see the difference between their stand and the morally consistent position taken by ARI.  Robert’s essay suggests an explanation as to why they do not express it.
 
Dennis

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 7/25, 1:56am)

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 7/25, 1:59am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 1:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The rest of the above cited quotations, taken in the context of the prior reference to the fact that “everyone who seizes upon Ayn Rand’s system…reads diverse meanings into her words,” imply that those individual interpretations are, at least to some extent, equally valid.
I still don't see where Robert is claiming that the individual interpretations are equally valid.

doing everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties in order to convince the enemy that our heart is in the right place
Where is the TAS doc that says this? I just searched on their website and can't find it. This does not sound, to me, like an accurate description of their position.

to risk the loss of thousands of American lives in order to save enemy civilians is a moral atrocity
The term "enemy" is questionable. For example, currently in Lebanon many of the civilians are innocent. The Christian Lebanese are against Hezbollah. To be clear, any innocent deaths are to be blamed on Hezbollah. But, what, exactly, is immoral about trying to minimize the deaths of innocents?


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jordan,

 

My contention is that Robert’s speech implies that the various interpretations are equally valid, because he suggests that there is no way to resolve those differences objectively.  He does not explicitly state that this is the case.  What other conclusion can one draw when he maintains that authoritarianism—not reason-- is the only way to resolve vast differences of opinion on key issues?  Intellectual anarchy will inevitably flourish unless “some people…serve as philosophical spokespersons for others.” Intellectual organizations must honor all such differences because no one can legitimately claim to have logic on their side.  Unanimity—not reality—serves as our ultimate arbiter and becomes the standard of theoretical validity.

 

I would like to emphasize that my specific motivation in criticizing Robert’s speech relates to what that speech implies about the operating principles of TAS.  The simple solution for an organization with a strong philosophical base would be for TAS’ leadership to avoid the implication of agnosticism/subjectivism by taking strong, well-defended stands on key questions while making it very clear that members who disagree on specifics are free to do so without any suggestion of being “corrupt” or “immoral.”

 

In other words, to take strong positions on all key issues but explicitly refrain from imposing their stated positions on the membership.  Perhaps they could issue an explicit policy to this effect.  That would preserve the integrity of Objectivism as a comprehensive, reality-based system while eliminating any suggestion that any particular representative was speaking for the entire membership. 

 

Unlike ARI, dissenting arguments on specific issues would be welcomed rather than treated as heresy, much as TAS has done in the past.  I am totally in favor of the kind of open forums TAS has often sponsored, as long as there is no implication of intellectual neutrality.  The leadership’s positions on some issues might well change as a result of such discussions.  At the same time, TAS would be consistently representing Objectivism as a sound philosophy based on reason and reality rather than a debating society.

 

My concern is that the undercurrent of subjectivism implied in Robert’s speech may have infected TAS to the extent that its leadership is no longer inclined to adopt controversial positions—regardless of how well-founded--if such positions might alienate some of its members.

 

An additional concern—as expressed in my prior two posts—is that TAS’ leadership does not appreciate the meaning of the principle of rational self-interest, particularly as it applies to the critical area of foreign policy.  You will find the specific reference to TAS’ “Position Statement” cited above here, and the Patrick Stephens’ article here.

 

The following is the quote I mentioned above:

4. While it is legitimate in war to risk civilian casualties, the military campaign should make every reasonable effort to avoid them. This is a matter of justice to those people in the affected countries who are not complicit in terror and who may themselves have been victims of terrorists and of the tyrants who harbor them. In addition, we have no real hope of eliminating terrorism unless such people agree that our cause is just and that our intentions toward them are benevolent.

You ask: “What exactly is immoral about trying to minimize the death of innocents?”

In war, the choice is: kill or be killed.  Any action we take to minimize the death of enemy civilians (who are not innocent to the extent that they are giving support to people who want us dead) means risking the lives of our own soldiers.  The most obvious example of this is our refusal to use our technological capability out of concern for civilian casualties—which results in death or injury to our troops on the ground.   That is altruism--aka Bush’s “compassionate war” strategy--and it is morally obscene.

 

Here is a quote from “Just War Theory vs. American Self-Defense” by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein:

Given that a nation’s civilian population is a crucial, physically and spiritually indispensable part of its initiation of force—of its violation of the rights of a victim nation—it is a morally legitimate target of the retaliation of a victim nation. Any alleged imperative to spare noncombatants as such is unjust and deadly.
That said, if it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—without military cost, they should not be killed; it is unjust and against one’s rational self-interest to senselessly kill the innocent; it is good to have more rational, pro-America people in the world…Insofar as the innocents cannot be isolated in the achievement of our military objectives, however, sparing their lives means sacrificing our own; and although the loss of their lives is unfortunate, we should kill them without hesitation.
Doing whatever is necessary in war means doing whatever is necessary. Once the facts are rationally evaluated, if it is found that using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear facilities or flattening Fallujah to end the Iraqi insurgency will save American lives, then these actions are morally mandatory, and to refrain from taking them is morally evil.
You specifically reference the Lebanese civilians, questioning whether or not they can be accurately characterized as “the enemy.”   To the extent that they are permitting Hezbollah terrorists to hide among them, they most certainly are, in much the same way that Afghan citizens who protect Bin Laden are very much “the enemy,” whether or not they would ever personally fire a bullet in our direction. 

 

Dennis

 

 

 


Sanction: 26, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 26, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 26, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
On a variety of issues, I am continually flattered by critics who must imaginatively restate my words in order to attack what I wrote.

For example, Dennis writes (post #7):
My contention is that Robert’s speech implies that the various interpretations are equally valid, because he suggests that there is no way to resolve those differences objectively. He does not explicitly state that this is the case. What other conclusion can one draw when he maintains that authoritarianism—not reason-- is the only way to resolve vast differences of opinion on key issues? [emphasis added]

Sigh.

No, I didn't "explicitly state that this is the case," Dennis, because had I wished to say any of the things that you attribute to me in those italicized passages, I am proficient enough in the English language to have simply stated them outright. I "suggested" and "maintained" no such
things.

In fact, quite the contrary.

The last sentence in that quoted passage -- your words, not mine -- is a completely wrong interpretation of what I said. As that sentence serves as the premise that led you to all the interpretations that preceded and follow it, they are all wrong, too. So are these further creative inferences you have drawn, and attribute to me:
Intellectual anarchy will inevitably flourish unless “some people…serve as philosophical spokespersons for others.” Intellectual organizations must honor all such differences because no one can legitimately claim to have logic on their side. Unanimity—not reality—serves as our ultimate arbiter and becomes the standard of theoretical validity.

Folks, I invite you to go back and reread "The Anatomy of Cooperation," and -- searching very diligently -- find anything that I said that could be so interpreted. You should immediately be suspicious that the only words of mine that Dennis puts in actual quotes in Post #7 is a single sentence fragment, with ellipses in the middle of it indicating missing language. What I actually said in the speech surrounding that sentence fragment is this:
It’s easy to see why philosophical advocacy groups are so unstable, and characterized by chronic purges and palace coups. The underlying problem is that such groups are rooted in the following principle: that some people are to serve as philosophical spokespersons for others.

This principle is perfectly consonant with religious, authoritarian, or collectivist groups. It is not compatible with a philosophy of rational individualism—a philosophy rooted in independent thinking and personal integrity. Objectivism accepts no authority figures or yes-men. No one could imagine a Howard Roark or a John Galt—or an Ayn Rand—allowing someone else to take public positions on his behalf.

And this principle explains much of the tumultuous history of the organized Objectivist movement—the schisms and breaks, the purges and excommunications, the vicious jockeying for positions of status and influence within Objectivist groups. Those groups can be characterized as intellectual orthodoxies—authoritarian structures in which some people presume to think and speak for others.

No mind can represent another—not philosophically. No two people will grasp all the implications of a complex, systematic philosophy in exactly the same way.
To escape the trap of orthodoxy, other ideological groups—such as libertarian and conservative advocacy organizations—have gone to the other extreme, and deliberately eschewed any systematic philosophy. But you don’t solve the problem of authoritarian dogma by sinking to vacuous subjectivism. The proper approach is to structure organizational projects in which a systematic philosophy may be advanced in ways that respect the independence and integrity of all participants.

Note: "But you don't solve the problem of authoritarian dogma by sinking to vacuous subjectivism." Anyone with eyes can see that my central aim in the speech was to define ways to structure organized philosophical efforts to avoid either orthodoxy or subjectivism, while simultaneously remaining consistent with Objectivism. By doing so, Objectivist values are advanced, while simultaneously, the individual integrity and independence of all participants are maintained and respected.

But Dennis (and no doubt other TAS critics) completely glosses over my rejection of "vacuous subjectivism," which was stated clearly in my speech. Why? Could it be because acknowledging this point would contradict the "TAS-is-subjectivist" portrait they wish to palm off on unknowing readers? Dennis says:
I would like to emphasize that my specific motivation in criticizing Robert’s speech relates to what that speech implies about the operating principles of TAS.

And:
My concern is that the undercurrent of subjectivism implied in Robert’s speech may have infected TAS to the extent that its leadership is no longer inclined to adopt controversial positions—regardless of how well-founded--if such positions might alienate some of its members.

Where is this "undercurrent of subjectivism"? I directly attacked organizations that eschew systematic, principled philosophical positions because of their "vacuous subjectivism," and I state outright that this evasion of philosophy is no answer to "authoritarian dogma." How, then, does my position amount to "infecting" TAS leadership with advice to avoid taking "controversial positions"?

Come on, Dennis. Play fair.

Now, with regard to your own proposal, you write:
The simple solution for an organization with a strong philosophical base would be for TAS’ leadership to avoid the implication of agnosticism/subjectivism by taking strong, well-defended stands on key questions while making it very clear that members who disagree on specifics are free to do so without any suggestion of being “corrupt” or “immoral.”

In other words, to take strong positions on all key issues but explicitly refrain from imposing their stated positions on the membership. Perhaps they could issue an explicit policy to this effect. That would preserve the integrity of Objectivism as a comprehensive, reality-based system while eliminating any suggestion that any particular representative was speaking for the entire membership.

This completely misses the problem I defined in the speech. The problem is that members would still be contributing money to a "leadership" to advance "strong positions" that members, as individuals, disagree with. This structure -- typical of many ideological groups, including Objectivist ones -- amounts to members giving a (literal) "blank check" to designated "leaders" or "spokesmen" to take positions that may be anathema to them.

Let's suppose that TAS were to buy into this kind of structure: We solicit memberships based on agreement with a statement of general Objectivist principles that any Objectivist would applaud; but all of a sudden, we start taking specific organizational positions on concrete issues -- say, on military strategy, or "women Presidents," or whether to support Bush or Kerry, etc.

Certainly, many issues are obvious in their direct connection to Objectivism, and the positions are easy calls. And we most emphatically take strong positions on such issues. Those who say we don't either aren't paying attention, or are flat-out lying about us. But other issues are extraordinarily complex -- such as how, exactly, to fight the war against Islamofascism (a fight that necessarily consists of many, many elements). Reasonable and totally principled Objectivists, who agree that we must fight Islamofascism, can (and do) disagree on many aspects of how to do that. And in political judgments, too: I recall that even Peikoff and Binswanger disagreed on whether to vote for Kerry or Bush.

So, do Objectivists give us their hard-earned cash promote the Objectivist philosophy...or to take new, unexpectedly specific stands on every public controversy?

To give a "blank check" to some "spokesman" to say whatever he wants on your behalf is morally irresponsible: that would be a subjectivist surrender of personal integrity and moral principle. Likewise, though, for us as TAS "leadership" to arrogate to ourselves the right to use member money to promote our own personal views (concerning matters not directly and obviously implied by Objectivist principles) would violate the integrity and independence of our members. This latter approach would create an authoritarian "orthodoxy," in which we, as "leaders," presumed to speak for a bunch of blindly acquiescent "followers." And this arrangement would lead eventually and inevitably to precisely the devisiveness, schisms, factionalism, and repudiations that have characterized Objectivist groups since NBI.

On the other hand, to remain mute on important issues for fear of giving offense would constitute cowardly subjectivism. Many vital matters need to be addressed, and silence is not an option. But how can a "group" take a strong, unified position while avoiding the trap of authoritarian orthodoxy?

That is why I suggested two organizational models -- educational forums, and ad hoc arrangements -- to solve the problem of ideological cooperation while avoiding both "authoritarian dogma" and "vacuous subjectivism."

That is what my speech is about. And that is why your "solution," Dennis, is no solution at all: it requires that group members remain mute followers of the "leadership," granting to that "leadership" the financial resources to say pretty much whatever they want. If I were a member in such a group, how would its publishing some "disclaimer" make any moral difference to me? The fact would remain that I would be paying my dues to advance views and positions that, at times, I might abhor.

Does the fact (say) that I endorse 95% of what ARI says make it "okay" for me to support their statements about nuking civilian populations, which I might find morally appalling? If 95% of my cash goes into projects I like, but 5% goes to producing books like Ayn Rand Answers -- which may contain 95% of Ayn Rand's actual words, but also 5% of the editor's own words and unacknowledged airbrushing of Rand's less savory ones -- is that morally okay? How much do I have to agree with a group before letting my money propagate things I deplore? Or is my integrity a matter of percentages?

And isn't it interesting that such questions about maintaining one's integrity and the evils of moral compromise are being advanced by someone at the "subjectivistic" TAS...but don't seem to be any concern at all for TAS's "morally uncompromising" critics?

Worth thinking about, eh?

Finally, and specifically, you contrast two quotations about the principle of justice during warfare. Here is the TAS statement as you quote it:
While it is legitimate in war to risk civilian casualties, the military campaign should make every reasonable effort to avoid them. This is a matter of justice to those people in the affected countries who are not complicit in terror and who may themselves have been victims of terrorists and of the tyrants who harbor them. In addition, we have no real hope of eliminating terrorism unless such people agree that our cause is just and that our intentions toward them are benevolent.

Now here is a comparable sentence from the ARI statement:
That said, if it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—without military cost, they should not be killed; it is unjust and against one’s rational self-interest to senselessly kill the innocent; it is good to have more rational, pro-America people in the world...

I shall leave to minds far subtler than mine the task of detecting any substantive moral difference in these two position statements. The only difference I can detect is in emphasis and tone.

I am sick and tired of the misquotations and caricatures of my positions, and those of The Atlas Society and its leaders. I have no objection to anyone challenging or repudiating our actual words and positions: that's fair. But I wish to put on notice those who would mistakenly -- or maliciously -- distort what we really say and believe: my time permitting, you will be publicly challenged, and your statements about us will be publicly compared with what we actually have written and said.

We at The Atlas Society are committed to a principled, "hardline" interpretation of Objectivism. So much so, in fact, that we will accept no substitutes for true "rational individualism" -- and everything those words imply.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 1:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis,

When I hear someone arguing essentially against what he thinks a person "implied" or an "undercurrent of" X instead of exactly quoting what the person stated, I reach for my revolver.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 5:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, I don't envy you, having to reply to this nonsense, but my hat's off to you for the civil and patient way in which you've proceeded to correct Mr. Hardin's astonishing misrepresentations.

Although I don't always agree with you, I am continually impressed by the form and content of your posts. I have to say, you're one of the most intelligent people I've ever encountered inside or outside of Objectivism.

A class act!

- Bill

Post 11

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 5:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks so much for the kind words, Bill.

But...wait a damned minute. What do you MEAN, you don't always agree with me????????!!!!!!!!

Post 12

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 5:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert,

Bill clearly implied that he always agrees with you.


Post 13

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh yeah...that elastic word, "implied."

How silly of me!

Sorry, Bill... Thanks for implying that you always agree with me.

Post 14

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 7:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The implications are tremendous here......;-)

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 9:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Flinging implications is better than flinging imprecations.

Post 16

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 11:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

...which is better yet than flinging impregnations!

Post 17

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A friend of mine would always respond to the claim that he had implied something with: "I didn't imply it, you inferred it!"  I think that's a useful distinction.
Thanks,
Glenn


Post 18

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 2:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
... which is better yet than flinging impregnations!
... which fling would be best termed "The Cooperation of Anatomy."


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 3:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Would this be a flinging abstraction?

Michael


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.