| Getting back to the point of this thread (BB's article ref'd by RB), Barbara focused on 4 specific factors re the (definitely as worthwhile a subject as "Randroid") problem of so much obvious O'ist-'rage'...in Cyberspace anyway.|
I could get picayune re certain assertions throughout, but, overall, I'd say she hit a good Cerebus-nail right on its multiple heads (ok: 4 heads).
Generally, however, I got a bone or two to pick about those points.
1) Evil Ideas
Ever since this...idea...first got brought up as a controversied subject re the pro/con ideas (ahem!) about it, I've found it to be quite the conundrum to satisfy myself (as opposed to those who clearly, and right-off-the-bat had no problem with it...on both opposing answer-sides about it) about the 'bottom line' proper view; ie, the 'rational' view...by *my* lights...in determining wheat from chaff on both sides' arguments.
I've concluded that there ARE E-Ds and that they ARE the bottom line source of evil actions. I buy Galt's speech as damn near totally identifying the necessities of mankind's existence, hence, also the bottom line start of identifying the 'nature'/'essence' of the 'Good' (more accurately, what's worth 'defining' as such): "All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil." --- If 'ideas' aren't relevent here, I've yet to see a cogent argument for that.
Probably the most influential idea I can think of here is the E-D that "I can live ok if I evade thinking about problem 'X' in my life." To be sure, this is hardly ever an overtly conscious one which one is chronically aware of in deciding things (indeed, such is an idea to be 'evaded' once one starts down that line of thinking...maybe with Galt's 'cookie jar' example. But the decision to evade is thereby a recursively circular one.) If THIS 'idea' doesn't start consequential evil considerations, decisions, actions, behaviour...I don't know what does. --- Of course, the decision/choice to use this idea-to-evade is never done by concluding its worth-overall...it's only done by feeling its worth-of-the-moment...and, making the free-will 'choice' to whim-worship.
Apart from this disagreement I have with her (and probably a few others) as to the worth of the idea of E-Ds, Barbara absolutely makes quite a few cogent insights into the rush-to-judgement attitudes of many self-styled cyber-O'ists. I'd say the prob there is much more in their psychological need to rush (after due cogitation, of course), and especially advertise their intensity of judging (can one say: "usually negatively"?) But, that's a separate factor in itself, methinks. --- Roark paragons, they are not. He advertised judgements once; these people go on and on and on...and...at least a bomb finally goes off, but these people are like the Eveready pink rabbit. Sorry, I digress.
As far as identifying The Singer with Their Song, Barbara's right on; but, ONLY for those who self-style themselves as 'moral-leaders'. Not every 'religious'-believer (or, disagreer-with-one-about-'X') is to be rationally considered 'evil' by virtue of what they...merely...say. Rand said "Judge, and be prepared to be judged," true; she also advised to "Think Twice" when one does such.
Too many myopically apply Rand's dictum of taking a person at their word re their exclaimed beliefs. Evaluating the likes of Jimmy Swaggert or Billy Graham or the Pope...or your Congressman/Senator...is not the same as evaluating your next-door-neighbor-aquaintance. Rand's dictum properly applies to decision-makers, not to their accepting followers. There are good Muslims, and Jews, and even Christians (probably even a Buddhist or two, somewhere). They're just not TOTALLY 'good', like all us squabbling O'ists who're more concerned with heretics than ignorant (some, and ONLY some, maliciously vicious) pagans. --- Sorry, I digress again.
Anyways, this 'point' went farther than I intended, so, I'll get to the others next post.
P.S: Barbara's complaint about the worth of accepting the idea of E-D's as useful/worthwhile seems to hint at its own...'evilness'...as thereby contributing to the rage; or, am I reading falsely into this railed-against point?
(Edited by John Dailey on 8/05, 12:40am)
(Edited by John Dailey on 8/05, 12:54am)
(Edited by John Dailey on 8/05, 1:20am)