RoR: Forum

The problem is that some Objectivists seem to think that the idea of honesty gives them the license to behave like ill-mannered jerks. Now if you want at all costs to repel civilized outsiders, this is of course the best course of action.

Post 41

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:13am

Cal,
It's a problem with some people, not just with some Objectivists. But, why let an opportunity to bash Objectivists go by, right?

Can I conclude from the above post that you are not civilized?

Post 42

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:22am

Wouldn�t refusal to eulogize look like keeping one�s mouth shut? That�s not what Luke did. Think it over a little more.

Right. Luke couldn't just walk away.

This episode reminds me of something Luke said before on the hotly debated "Altruism against Freedom" thread. In responding to whether or not he would help someone in distress, Luke said:

"I can think of a few people to whom I would offer no assistance but instead would watch bleed and die such as Hillary Clinton, Fidel Castro, and other notables, as well as some of the bullies I recall from my school years and certain unsavory coworkers."

He would not just walk away, but instead, would watch them bleed and die. Fidel Castro notwithstanding, "them" would include Hillary Clinton, his school year bullies and some of his coworkers, and undoubtedly, Nathan Hawking.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 7/28, 8:24am)

Post 43

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:26am

Bill wrote:

although if the above quotation by Stephen Boydstun is any indication, I probably would not have thought too highly of him.

Interesting, very interesting. Reading the same quote, I came to the exact opposite conclusion. I acknowledge that I as well know very little of him otherwise, but still..

So, from his quote, I understand that you find someone who questions assumptions and at least keeps an open mind toward the possibility of error, somehow reprehensible?

Stephen posted the quote as "good ideas" and I completely agree. What do you see wrong with this?

Bob

Post 44

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:25am

Glenn:

It's a problem with some people, not just with some Objectivists. But, why let an opportunity to bash Objectivists go by, right?

I think it is a typical Objectivist problem, as such behavior is rationalized by the idea that Objectivists always should tell the truth, regardless the circumstances. I find it rather ironic to see all those efforts to get outsiders interested in Objectivism, while the behavior of many Objectivists is so off-putting (look for example what happens on the different Objectivist forums, with all the splits and denunciations, the sniping and bitching).

Can I conclude from the above post that you are not civilized?

You may conclude what you want, I've drawn my conclusions already long ago.

Post 45

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:32am

I did have my disagreements with Nathan, but I've found him always a thoughtful opponent who really could listen to what you had to say. His website was a haven for those who really wanted to discuss ideas, instead of attacking the person behind those ideas. I had some inspiring discussions there from which I've learnt a lot. I'll really miss him.

Post 46

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:53am

Cal said:

You may conclude what you want,

Not true. I'm constrained by reason; aren't you?
And:

I've drawn my conclusions already long ago.

That couldn't be more obvious.

Post 47

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:55am

Hong wrote:

He would not just walk away, but instead, would watch them bleed and die.

I stand by that statement, Hong.

Frankly, Hong, I find your evaluations puzzling. Surely some of the political bullies you encountered in Communist China would warrant such treatment.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/28, 10:02am)

Post 48

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:41am

I think the discussion is going a little too far, I don't think Luke is the kind of person people are trying to depict now. He had his views about Nathan and freely expressed them, indifferent to how the people who liked Nathan would react, but I don't think just for one moment, that Luke is the kind of person that would enjoy watching people like Nathan bleed to death.
I don't think however that he is wrong by enjoying to watch people like Castro bleed to death, I would enjoy that too.

Post 49

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:07am

Just to probe this a bit more: Suppose that while Nathan was still alive, someone posted an article eulogizing him and his accomplishments, a viewpoint to which one took strong exception. Would it be inappropriate to voice a dissenting opinion? And if not, then why is it any different if someone posts an article eulogizing him after he has died? Why must we honor someone in death whom we did not honor in life?

This issue reminds me of an episode involving one of my philosophy professors. I had written a paper strongly critical of his mentor, Logical Positivist Moritz Schick, for which I received an uncharacteristically low grade. When I went to see the professor about it, he chastised me for speaking so irreverently of the dead. Would I have been given a higher grade, I wondered, had I voiced the same criticism of Schlick while he was still alive?

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 7/28, 11:14am)

Post 50

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:35am

Bill:

Just to prob this a bit more: Suppose that while Nathan was still alive, someone posted an article eulogizing him and his accomplishments, a viewpoint to which one took strong exception. Would it be inappropriate to voice a dissenting opinion?

Of course not.

And if not, then why is it any different if someone posts an article eulogizing him after he has died? Why must we honor someone in death whom we did not honor in life?

Of course you don't have to honor someone in death whom you did not honor in life. But there are situations in which you then just have to keep your mouth shut, for example when that person belonged to a certain community in which people did like him and admired him: it is just bad manners to denigrate him within that community on the occasion of his death, whether this community is a firm where he worked or an Internet forum wherein he participated. It is unnecessary and rude. I find it amazing that such common decency has to be pointed out. While he still participated on the forum you've had every opportunity to tell him what you thought of him, now it is too late, such denigration can only hurt people who thought highly of him. And if you can't resist the urge, then do it elsewhere, but not on the forum where he had his friends.

Post 51

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:42am

I wrote: "...although if the above quotation by Stephen Boydstun is any indication, I probably would not have thought too highly of [Nathan Hawking]. Bob replied,

Stephen posted the quote as "good ideas" and I completely agree. What do you see wrong with this?

Here's what I took exception to:

Nothing I know about reality or philosophy proves that any system of philosophical thought is demonstrably complete or flawless, or that humans are demonstrably able to reason in any more than trivial ways without the possibility of error.

This said of a race that has put a man on the moon, authored the Declaration of Independence and created the philosophy of Objectivism, which contains so many important truths they deserve to be shouted from the tallest skyscraper.

- Bill

Post 52

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:06pm

Ciro said that he would enjoy to watch people like Castro bleed to death.

Really, Ciro? Wouldn't you just put a bullet in him and finish him off, instead of standing there and watching? Killing because of necessity is one thing. Enjoying the process of killing is quite another.

Ciro also said,

I don't think just for one moment, that Luke is the kind of person that would enjoy watching people like Nathan bleed to death.

My mistake perhaps. If it's not people like Nathan, then surely it's people like "Hilary Clinton ...and ...some of the bullies ...and certain unsavory coworkers" of Luke. I specifically asked Luke if he meant it literally and he said yes. I took his answer literally.

Post 53

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:09pm

�Why must we honor someone in death whom we did not honor in life?� [Bill]

Bill, you are pulling a Nick on us, here. For the fourteenth time: Luke does not have to honor Nathan. Not then, not now. He made his disgust for the man known right here on this forum while Nathan was alive and on this forum. That was fine.

�I find it amazing that such common decency has to be pointed out.� [Cal]

Amazing at a minimum. I mean WTF!

Post 54

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:15pm

I am pretty well disgusted now. I want to enjoy the rest of my day and I won�t until I get this off my chest�I�ll retract it later (someone please remind me):

We now know who thinks it fine to piss on death announcements. We have it from them in print while they were still alive. I can hardly wait! I�m starting rough drafts right now.

Post 55

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:26pm

Killing because of necessity is one thing. Enjoying the process of killing is quite another

I agree, Hong.
But, what if someone would kill your son just for the pleasure of killing, don't you want to enjoy the sob bleed to death? That's how I meant it.

I specifically asked Luke if he meant it literally and he said yes. I took his answer literally.

Well for this person in order to make such statement I think that he will soon depart from RoR

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 7/28, 12:33pm)

Post 56

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:53pm

Bill wrote:

This said of a race that has put a man on the moon, authored the Declaration of Independence and created the philosophy of Objectivism

If I infer correctly that you are asserting that these three things are somewhat equivalent in terms of the successes of man, then all I can say is... Wow

One of them is quite impressive...

FWIW, the quote that you object to, I find to be profoundly wise. It does not surprise me that you think otherwise.

Bob

(Edited by Mr Bob Mac on 7/28, 12:59pm)

Post 57

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:57pm

Ciro,
Although I believe in justice, in "an eye for an eye", I am not a sadist. I don't think I'd ever enjoy that process.

Post 58

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 1:05pm

Hong, that's why AR didn't believe having a woman president! :-))

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 7/28, 1:07pm)

Post 59

Friday, July 28, 2006 - 1:09pm