RoR: Forum

Michael M,

I was one of those who remained seated. I think that the biographies written by Nathaniel and Barbara exhibit the very unfairness that they rail against. However, I don't view that as a shunning offense. I am willing to say the same directly to them.

Jim

Post 21

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 2:31pm

Michael M:

You wrote, expecting Barbara's article to be a food-fight:

That was my expectation as I clicked the link... and I was pleasantly surprised that it was not.

You see how smear campaigns construct false expectations? That literally is a pre-conception you had before you read the article. And see how easy false expectations are to dismiss once a person examines reality?

My feeling (from my direct perception and later mulling it over) is that the people who stood and clapped at Barbara's speech did not do so out of ignorance or partisanship, as you insinuate. (A few might fit that category, but from what I saw, not the vast majority.)

People other than Hitler have been known to receive standing ovations. Standing ovations can be good things at times.

Hell, I received a generous share of them at symphony orchestra concerts.

Barbara earned hers that day the hard way. She induced people to think by being brilliant.

Michael

Post 22

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 5:51pm

John Enright is correct. A number people stayed seated (a minority).

Michael

Post 23

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 8:05pm

Ciro,

I'm always aware of when Barbara is talking about Ayn Rand.

Ethan

Post 24

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 8:13pm

Ethan,

It comes right out from between the lines, doesn't it.

Jim

Post 25

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 10:55pm

Barbara wrote,

It is the people who cannot bear to live with uncertainty who are the greatest threat to Objectivism. They are the ones we must beware of. We must never let them tell us that we are culpable for what we do not know, for our doubts, for our questions, for our disagreements with aspects of Objectivism. We must wear our uncertainties as a badge of honor, for it is only through uncertainty that we will find the path to knowledge.

Hmm. I'm not so sure. ;-) Uh, sorry to be so uncertain about Barbara's position; I was just hoping to find the true path to knowledge.

Oops! I guess I'm not wearing my uncertainty as a true badge of honor, am I?! Okay, I'm NOT sorry to be so uncertain about her position. But if I'm uncertain about it, that means that I think she could be wrong, and that CERTAINTY (horror of horrors!) could be the true path to knowledge. Imagine that!

Oh, wait! If you believe in Barbara's position, then you can't imagine that, because if certainty WERE the true path to knowledge, then you'd be giving up your belief that uncertainty is, of which you're absolutely CERTAIN! ;-)

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 8/04, 11:04pm)

Post 26

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 11:07pm

Bill,

That would have made a great Monty Python skit :-). Of course we are uncertain of things and then we become more certain with new evidence. We learn things like smoking is bad for your health, homosexuality is OK, evolution is cool, psychology is important, we have to know how the brain works in order to fully understand how we think... Yes it seems there are lots of things about which we change our minds when we were formerly certain ;-).

Jim

Post 27

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 11:18pm

Yes it seems there are lots of things about which we change our minds when we were formerly certain ;-).

And there are lots of things of which we become certain when we change our minds. ;-)

- Bill

Post 28

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 11:25pm

True and there are lots of things about which we become uncertain when we change our minds :-). The key is that if we are using a correct method, we always know more than when we started.

Jim

Post 29

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 12:36am

     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.

LLAP
J:D

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)

Post 30

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 12:58am

John D.-

I don't think notions of evil ideas are unique to Objectivists, however Objectivists' screwed up notion of sanction is the real root of a lot of the movement's problems. Many Objectivists take minor peccadillos and blow them up into relationship-breaking problems by using sanction. The only philosophies/religions that I can think of that are so adamant about sealing oneself off from one's moral inferiors are Hinduism and Jehovah's Witnesses. The point about sanction is that you use it to accomplish things in the real world not to prove how morally pure you are.

Jim

Post 31

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 1:04am

James Nelson wrote:

we are uncertain of things and then we become more certain with new evidence

As I pointed out in another thread, you can't be more certain about something. That doesn't make any sense. Let's not butcher the English language here. Either you are certain or you are not. Certain means indisputable. Something cannot become more indisputable. Either it's disputable or it's indisputable.

Post 32

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 1:29am

John:

      You clearly imply that there are no degrees of 'certainty'...as *you* would ever use the term.

      Re how others may use it, there IS 'sense' to the idea of degrees of 'certainty', if and when one makes a point to understand others' use of the term. 'Certain' MAY mean unconditionally-definite; it MAY also mean merely-probable. --- 99% certainty is not an unconditionally-definite assertion...and...'certainty' has a meaningful sense there.

      Why quibble about term-use?

LLAP
J:D

Post 33

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 1:46am

I don't think I am quibbling John, there are degrees of probability. 0 to 100 percent. There are no degrees of certainty. Anything less than 100 percent means we are uncertain. We can be certain about a probability. If we attach a probability to an event at 80%, then we are certain it is 80% likely to happen. We don't say we are 80% certain it will happen, we say it is 80% likely it will happen, and that we are certain of. Otherwise we are completely butchering the meaning of the term certain.

Post 34

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 2:52am

This is semantic quibbling. If you for example Google on "degree of certainty", you'll get 1,500,000 hits, so this expression is certainly common usage, and there is no misunderstanding about its meaning.

Post 35

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 4:28am

There is context of certainty..... with each extention of knowledge, there becomes a greater amount of certainty or a greater continuence of certainty within contexts - that is, in common parlance, 'more certainty'...

Post 36

Friday, August 4, 2006 - 11:50pm

Bill,

With all due respect, the point is that a person should not have such an intense neurotic need for order that this causes him to claim certainty where doubts exist in his mind.

The future, for example, holds one hell of a bunch of uncertainties for all of us. Here is the grandaddy (and this is only one):

Are you absolutely certain that you will continue living tomorrow?

If you are not absolutely certain of this, then you have to deal with it. This fact influences everything you do, since you most likely would like to continue living tomorrow. That's a primary value without the possibility ever of 100% assurance.

Bitching and being obnoxious to others won't help you become more secure. And mocking those who say they can't be certain they won't die tomorrow, so they buy life insurance, for example, is the kind of attitude she was talking against - except her focus was more philosophical and with an Objectivist flavor. (I just came up with this life insurance thing, but the more I think about it, the more I see that it is a wonderful metaphor to apply to ethics.)

I had long talks with Barbara. I assure you that she holds many, many certainties - but she only holds the ones where she actually can be certain. She doesn't fake it, neither to herself nor to others.

Michael

Post 37

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 9:23am

This is semantic quibbling. If you for example Google on "degree of certainty", you'll get 1,500,000 hits, so this expression is certainly common usage, and there is no misunderstanding about its meaning.

Oh yes of course, because you find 1,500,000 hits it is therefore correct. I forgot that an argument's validity depends on how many hits you get on google.

Post 38

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 9:33am

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote:

the point is that a person should not have such an intense neurotic need for order that this causes him to claim certainty where doubts exist in his mind

If doubts exist in his mind wouldn't that make him uncertain?

Are you absolutely certain.....

What other kind of certainty is there?

Post 39

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 10:29am