RoR: Forum

Thank you, Bill, for stating a blunt, harsh truth too many people need to hear.

Thank you, Joe, for isolating this quote and archiving it for permanent future reference and sanction.

Post 1

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 10:37am

Now, who was it who claimed that the burden of proof is on him who asserts the positive?

IMHO any criticism or defense of a system will succeed or fail on the basis of its own adherence to truth; the demonstration of understanding of that system is concomitant, not prior. Moreover, it will succeed or fail, likewise, in its components, individually, addressing parts of that system, whether or not, or to whatever extent, it succeeds as a whole composition, addressing perhaps the whole.

Be dismissive, if you wish, according to your own priorities, but don't feign its cause.

Post 2

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 12:01pm

"Moreover, it will succeed or fail, likewise, in its components, individually, addressing parts of that system, whether or not, or to whatever extent, it succeeds as a whole composition, addressing perhaps the whole."

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you be a little more vague and add several more clauses to that sentence?

Post 3

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 6:01am

Jon, not even if you revived your attention span long enough to read my final paragraph.

Post 4

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 1:32pm

David wrote,

Now, who was it who claimed that the burden of proof is on him who asserts the positive?

IMHO any criticism or defense of a system will succeed or fail on the basis of its own adherence to truth; the demonstration of understanding of that system is concomitant, not prior. Moreover, it will succeed or fail, likewise, in its components, individually, addressing parts of that system, whether or not, or to whatever extent, it succeeds as a whole composition, addressing perhaps the whole.

Be dismissive, if you wish, according to your own priorities, but don't feign its cause.

My point was that you have to understand what someone is saying before criticizing it. Otherwise, you'll be knocking down a straw man. So I guess you didn't understand what I was saying before criticizing it. So you were knocking down a straw man. ;-)

- Bill

Post 5

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 11:25am

Bill, do the words "demonstrate that you" lack significance? Or are you setting up and knocking down a straw man?

Post 6

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 11:54am

(continuing belatedly)

After removing the hubris from the quote, and expressing its apparent intention correctly, we end up with "You have to understand Objectivism(,) before you criticize it."

I only have a quibble with this reformulation, albeit with Socratic hackles raised. Not only negative criticism, but also criticism in general, and even the positive expression of something have value, as part of a process of discussion and of learning. Surely it is not your intention to shut this process off, or to insist on a priestly or Jeopardy-like approach where any negative comment must be formulated as a question.

So, perhaps what you really want to say is that you have to make an honest attempt to understand Objectivism, before you criticize it. In this regard, Objectivism is hardly sui generis.

Post 7

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 11:40am